Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

BANGOR MARKET BILL [Lords] (By Order)

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHTON WEST PIER) BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Teachers (Employment)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the present number of qualified schoolteachers not in full-time employment.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Unemployment, whether among teachers or anyone else, is no cause for satisfaction. However, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the March figure for schoolteacher unemployment in England—namely 7,818—was lower than the figure for that month in the previous two years.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister agree that that figure is still far too high? What is he able to say to the unemployed school teachers in Derbyshire who are having to exist on a little supply teaching or on the dole, when the policy of cutting back on specialist teaching is forcing some schools to offer fewer subjects? How is that helping to raise standards in education?

Mr. Carlisle: My answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the figure that I gave represents less than 2 per cent. of the whole of the teaching force. I say to


the teachers in Derbyshire, or anywhere else, that I believe our proposals for education over the next few years, allowing for the numbers likely to leave the teacher training colleges, will mean that there will be opportunities in education for those people.

Overseas Students (Fees)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about overseas students' fees.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): From 1 September 1980 overseas students beginning courses will, in general, be expected to pay full cost fees, and those in mid-course, fees at the subsidised overseas rates. It is intended that students from European Community countries should pay the home rates of fee.

Mr. Bennett: In arriving at those decisions, will the Minister give the estimates of the Department on income resulting from people being trained in this country, and, on returning to their own country, specifying equipment that has to be bought from British manufacturers?

Dr. Boyson: Attempts have been made to quantify that, but none has been satisfactory, either from people who are for or against the increased fees for overseas students. The 10 to 15 years during which there have been increases in foreign students have been years of relative economic decline, so there is no automatic link between the number of foreign students coming to this country—which has tripled in the last 10 years—and the British economic system.

Mr. Beith: Has there not already been a 12 per cent. reduction in the number of overseas students coming to this country? Is not that reduction likely to be disproportionately from poor students from poor countries? Why is it the Government's policy to allow students from rich countries—including EEC—to continue readily to come to Britain, while the poorest are not able to do so?

Dr. Boyson: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the EEC, because I had always thought that Liberal Members were pro-EEC. Since the EEC is the one area in the world to which we send more students than we receive, I am

astonished at the hon. Gentleman's attitude on that point. There is a decrease in the number of applications of 12 per cent. up to the end of March this year compared with last year, and 6 per cent. compared with two years ago. However, it should be remembered that only one in four of those who applied last year was accepted at that time and many must have had the necessary qualifications for acceptance. A fall of between 17 and 20 per cent. in the number of foreign students accepted would not reduce the figures to the numbers planned by the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that no one asked for the number of foreign students to rise as much as it did over the past 10 years? Does he further agree that it is better to ration by price rather than by quota?

Dr. Boyson: I find myself in total agreement with my hon. Friend. Under the previous system all students were subsidised, and one student in four came from a country where the average income was higher than that in Britain. I remind the House that the ODA will continue to help students from under-developed territories.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Trippier: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present local education authority recoupment charge for secondary school education; whether this figure includes any allowance for capital element; and what is the comparable full cost of a school place in a typical independent day school likely to participate in the assisted places scheme.

Dr. Boyson: The recoupment charge for the financial year 1979–80 is £715 for pupils aged 11–16 years and £1,155 for sixth form pupils, both figures including an allowance for capital costs. I understand that in January 1980 the average day fee at direct grant grammar schools—which we expect to provide the core of the assisted places scheme and which have all indicated their interest in joining it—was about £900, at Head Masters' Conference schools the day fee was £1,200 and at Girls' Schools Association schools about £1,000.

Mr. Trippier: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures indicate that the


scheme is remarkable value for money, especially as it does not take into account the contribution that some parents will be making?

Dr. Boyson: Rossendale is the valley in which I was privileged to be born. It seems that the sense of those in that valley is as strong now as it always was.

Mr. Kinnock: I recognise that the Government have a strong interest in various transfer fees. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recoupment costs are only one of the ways of measuring unit costs in education? Does he accept that whatever is spent on the assisted places scheme is extra money spent in the most favoured part of the education system? As all the teachers' unions and other experts have forecast, it will result in the creaming-off of the most able pupils from the maintained sector and the threatening of the viability of sixth form courses. In view of the continued disputation over these matters, will he prevail upon his right hon. and learned Friend to publish the results of the study of the National Children's Bureau, which demonstrates conclusively that more able children are not penalised by being in the maintained sector?

Dr. Boyson: It is up to the National Children's Bureau to publish its survey. As I understand it, the Government have provided the money for publication. I am sure that the report will be studied by hon. Members on both sides of the House when it is published and that they will join in battle in the Chamber. I remind the House that all the assistance that we are putting into the scheme will go to parents who could not otherwise afford to send their children to the schools within the scheme.

Mr. Kinnock: Nonsense.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense". That indicates that my statement is hurting. Let me remind him that 30 per cent. of British families will be able to let their children participate in the assisted places scheme without paying a penny, if their children pass the examination; 43 per cent. will be assisted and the 27 per cent. in receipt of higher incomes, including Members of Parliament, will have to pay the full fee. If the scheme is operating against the

working class, I should like to know what is operating for the working class.

Mr. Cormack: Did my hon. Friend note the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) when he congratulated his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) on getting his second child to Ampleforth?

Dr. Boyson: The ex-direct grant schools and many of the independent schools are superb academic schools. I do not blame anyone for wishing their children to go to them. We want a system that will enable the children to go to these schools who can gain most from them, irrespective of their background.

Teaching Profession

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes next to meet leaders of the teaching profession.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I expect to meet representatives of teachers in universities and in colleges of further and higher education on 13 May, and of the National Association of Head Teachers on 26 May.

Mr. Jones: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the teachers' leaders does he agree that they will draw to his attention the crushing Tory election defeats of last week? Will he give an assurance that he will not frustrate any plans for comprehensive schools in any local education authority areas?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman's charming smile as he asked his supplementary question made me think that he did not really believe that there had been the crushing defeat that he pretended, compared with the occasion when the seats were last fought. I believe that education largely needs a period of stability. In the local education authorities, where the political leadership changes regularly, I hope that those concerned will come to agree a system of education that will not be changed, or made the subject of an attempt to change, every time the political leadership of the council changes.

Mr. Marlow: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the teachers' representatives will he discuss with them the £140 million which has been issued to them by some boneheaded and rather


scatterbrained professor from somewhere in the Midlands, and say what he intends to do, together with the local authority associations, to get that money back on behalf of the ratepayers, who are likely to be hammered through the pocket by teachers' pay to far too great an effect?

Mr. Carlisle: The Department employs no teachers. The employment of teachers is a matter for the teachers' unions and the local education authorities. My hon. Friend commented on the £140 million. It appears that there was a factual error in Professor Clegg's report. It is by no means clear what effect, if any, that had on the recommendations that were eventually made.

Mr. Pavitt: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the teachers' leaders, will he give further consideration to the issue of falling rolls and extend a good deal of sympathy to the problem that arises in inner cities, where there are special demographic and other features that will have to be met with help?

Mr. Carlisle: Over the next few years numbers in schools will fall dramatically. I have said repeatedly that the saving that we are looking for in education, both in the number of teachers and in expenditure generally, is less than the equivalent proportionate fall in the number of pupils. We realise that there are some diseconomies of scale.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the leaders of the teachers' unions on a future occasion, will he indicate to them that he believes in democracy and that, perhaps reluctantly, he has agreed the reorganisation proposals for Tameside, which indicates clearly that the Government honour local democracy when there is a change of Government? When he next meets the head teachers and teachers will he tell them that parents are also experts on their children and that we expect as much attention to be paid to parents' wishes for their children's future as we do to the wishes of teachers.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend asked me rather a lot of questions in one supplementary question. I agree with him about the importance of the wishes and the views of parents. That is inherent in the recent Education Act. As for

my hon. Friend's remark about Tame-side, yes, I believe in democracy. I believe that, on issues of policy, the local education authority must at least have the opportunity of putting forward the plans that it believes are right for its area. I, among others, have to decide on education grounds whether the plans are acceptable to the Department.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the leaders of the teaching profession, will he make it clear that he approved the Tameside proposals not reluctantly, as his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) suggested, but because they were right for the area and because several elections had proved that that was what the electorate wanted? In the areas that have not yet gone comprehensive, and where there have been clear mandates from the electorate at last week's elections, will he confirm that he will not stand in the way of authorities that wish to go comprehensive in future? Will he also explain—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is being unfair to the rest of the House.

Mr. Carlisle: I repeat that I approved the Tameside proposals to go comprehensive because they represented an issue of policy for the borough and were submitted by the duly elected local education authority. The proposals have been argued through two local election campaigns. I was advised that if the area was to go comprehensive the system was sound educationally. As I said to the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), in reply to an earlier question, I still believe that it is in the interests of children generally that we retain, rather than continually change, our form of secondary education.

Mr. Marks: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his decision—announced today—about Tameside? Is it not significant that a council that was Conservative-controlled two years ago now has 46 Labour councillors and 10 Conservative councillors? Is he aware that there is some concern about the long delay that occurred before the decision was announced? Although some of us accept that such decisions should not be announced during local elections, was not the announcement on the Birmingham


local education authority during that time very strange? Does the Department use any criteria when making such announcements?

Mr. Carlisle: With great respect, the two cases are totally different. Only one school was involved in Sutton Coldfield. The local education authority put in a request to restore the school to grammar status, and that request was shown to have the support of parents living in Sutton Coldfield. That came up in the normal way, and I thought it right that the decision should be announced.
I am glad that I managed to make the announcement about Tameside after the elections. I know that education is a highly emotive issue in that area, but I hope that the decision will now be accepted with good grace by both sides.

Teachers

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect reductions in local authority manpower will have on teacher numbers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): This is for individual authorities to decide. The Government's expenditure plans assume a reduction of nearly 40,000 teachers in England and Wales between 1979–80 and 1982–83.

Mr. Montgomery: Has my hon. Friend some idea of the size of the drop in school rolls during the whole of that period? What effect will that have on the pupil-teacher ratio?

Mr. Macfarlane: Pupil numbers in England and Wales are predicted to fall by approximately 800,000 during that period. We expect that the pupil-teacher ratio will fall from 18.9:1 in 1979, to 18.5:1 in 1983.

Mr. Foster: Does the Minister admit that the number of teaching staff assumed in the public expenditure White Paper will prove completely inadequate if curriculum and education standards are to be protected?

Mr. Macfarlane: No line can be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's observation. As regards expenditure over the next four years, my right hon. and learned Friend has made clear that we are determined

to preserve the curriculum and our educational standards. We shall certainly do that.

Mr. Dover: Is the Minister satisfied that everything possible is being done to encourage the early retirement of teachers, and thus avoid any necessity for redundancies?

Mr. Macfarlane: That is a matter for local education authorities to decide, in consultation with teaching unions. My right hon. and learned Friend will not direct that policy.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, given falling rolls, this is the right time to make drastic improvements in pupil-teacher ratios? Does not he accept that if the Labour Party had remained in office it would have concentrated on moving in that direction, and would have provided more teachers in the areas of greatest educational need?

Mr. Macfarlane: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not engage in inaccuracies. In the hon. Gentleman's interest, and that of his constituents, I must tell him that the pupil-teacher ratio has never been better. Future redeployment has been discussed with local authorities, and will be discussed in the course of consultations during the next few months. We recognise that there is a need to transfer more teachers into certain educational areas. That issue is being discussed with some urgency.

Ancillary and Administrative Personnel

Mr. Thornton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if there will be any reduction in the ancillary staff in schools as a result of reductions in local authority manpower; and whether he expects any savings in administration personnel.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on the reduction in employment of ancillary workers in schools.

Mr. Macfarlane: The Government's expenditure plans imply some reduction in ancillary staff in schools as pupil numbers fall as new arrangements for providing school meals are introduced in the light of the Education Act 1980. The


Government plans also imply savings in administration personnel. The pattern and extent of these reductions will be for individual local authorities to determine.

Mr. Thornton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, given expenditure targets, local authorities are sometimes faced with the alternative of preserving the ancillary worker arrangements inherited from former authorities or of getting rid of teachers? Does he not further agree that authorities should be given every encouragement to get rid of ancillary workers rather than teachers, to conform with those expenditure targets?

Mr. Macfarlane: The encouragement is certainly there. My right hon. and learned Friend made that point clear. Perhaps I can offer my hon. Friend some consolation if he is concerned about the policy of former local authorities. The Government's expenditure plans allow nationally for some increases per pupil in schools' non-teaching costs expenditure. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the policy of getting rid of ancillary workers is causing great hardship and a lowering of standards in education and care in schools in Leicestershire? Does not he accept that the poorer the area, the greater is the loss incurred by a reduction in the number of hours worked by ancillary workers? Does not he agree that these invaluable people, who are often poorly paid, are vital to our education system?

Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. and learned Friend has made clear, and I also acknowledge, that the ancillary worker plays a vital part in the daily life of any school, no matter for which age group it caters. I am aware of his anxiety, and that experienced by his constituency and county. However, to be parochial, some £600,000 was restored to the budget of Leicestershire for that aspect of expenditure. My right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman were engaged in correspondence in the middle of March. That should give him some reassurance that the restoration of that money will encourage the retention of a number of ancillary workers at primary school level. Indeed, ancillary workers are probably most needed in that area.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are educational advantages in having school meals supervised by teachers? If he agrees, will he work towards that as a long-term objective?

Mr. Macfarlane: In an ideal world that might be the ideal situation. Unhappily, the trends and developments of recent years have led to a shift away from that policy. The school meals provision is effectively administered, and I hope that the Education Act 1980 will improve that provision.

Mr. James A. Dunn: What notification have the Merseyside authorities given to the Minister about the reduction in the establishment of ancillary and administrative staff, in the various educational undertakings? Will he give some assurance that he will carefully reappraise any recommendations that are made, in the light of local need?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot promise to reappraise anything. It is predominantly a matter for local Merseyside authorities to decide. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but, as far as I know, my Department has received no notification from Merseyside. The best thing to do is to check that thoroughly. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the subject of ancillary staff on the Adjournment of this House, if I am fortunate enough to be able to do so.

University Grants Committee

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to meet the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I have no plans at present to meet the full committee. My Department is in close and regular contact with the chairman of the committee and his officers.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Since those close contacts might presumably include discussion about the total grant made to universities, is it accurate to say that that is looked at relatively as a cash limit? Is there any element of inflation built into the 1980–81 grant?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes. I announced recently that the grant provision for 1980–81 would be £987 million. That is a cash limit. It takes account of assumed inflation, and is based on the assumption of roughly level fundings within the universities, and an equivalent number of entries into universities this year as last.

Dr. Hampson: Considering the favourable response of the vice-chancellors committee to the Finniston committee's suggestion that we need a more practical base for our engineering courses, will the Government discuss with the University Grants Committee proposals to extend sandwich course learning?

Mr. Carlisle: The Department will be running a conference later this year and it will look at all the educational effects of the Finniston report. No doubt such matters will come up at that conference.

Denominational Provision

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent, in deciding upon applications to him under section 13 of the Education Act 1944, he takes into consideration the need for denominational provision.

Dr. Boyson: In considering proposals made under section 13 of the Education Act 1944, my right hon. and learned Friend takes into consideration all the relevant factors in each case. This includes demand for denominational provision where that is relevant.

Mr. Greenway: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Department's decision this morning regarding Highbury Grove school, which is a good decision about a good school? In considering the recent application by the London borough of Ealing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—for the establishment of a new denominational school, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is no Church of England secondary school in Ealing?

Dr. Boyson: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend will take into consideration the demand for denominational schools in that area and the question of balance. He will also take account of the fact that we have received 7,623 signatures opposed to the proposals and 11,575 in favour.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that those parents who seek denominational education for their children in Church of England schools in the borough are satisfied with the provision in adjacent local education authorities? Will the hon. Gentleman also take into account the fact that the teachers are overwhelmingly against the changes proposed, and that there is danger, for local reasons which have nothing to do with the attitudes of the Church of England, of the Twyford development becoming a sectarian matter?

Dr. Boyson: I have the privilege of representing the constituency adjoining Ealing, North. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is demand for Church of England secondary education in the area, including from my constituency. Schools exist not only for teachers, but so that parents may choose an education for their children. All these factors will be taken in account by my right hon. and learned Friend. Schools should reflect the desires of parents in the area.

Mr. Kinnock: Who in Brent has made an application under section 13 that would affect the Twyford application?

Dr. Boyson: No one. The hon. Gentleman will know his constituency and I know mine. I know that there is that interest, which also comes from the nine Church of England churches. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in local factors, perhaps he will allow me to take him on a trip around my constituency one evening.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend modestly accept that having a successful headmaster as a Minister in the Department of Education and Science helps to reflect parental views on many matters, including denominational schools? Does my hon. Friend recognise that, with another successful headmaster, Peter Dawson, from Eltham Green, as General Secretary of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, parental wishes on such matters as denominational schools will receive even more consideration?

Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend's comments are interesting. I had the privilege of visiting that school in the South of


England soon after Peter Dawson took over. I know what a splendid school he made it. I am pleased that he has moved to a position of influence in the union, as I have moved into Parliament. Both moves demonstrate that factors influencing education are as important outside schools as in the head's study. Perhaps when we all have it right we can go back.

Sixth Forms

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what studies his Department has made as to whether the removal of the sixth form has adverse effects on the lower school.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: No specific studies have been undertaken.

Mr. MacKay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the House would like his assurance that he will not embrace the fashion for sixth form colleges without a study of their effect lower down the school? Is he aware that if A-level pupils and teachers are removed from a school it can narrow its aims and objectives, to the detriment of pupils in earlier years?

Mr. Carlisle: Strong educational arguments are often advanced for retaining 11-to-18 schools rather than having sixth form colleges. However, I have to balance that against the fact that, with the falling number of pupils of secondary school age, it may be difficult for every secondary school to have a viable sixth form unless it becomes too large overall. Different solutions may be the answer in different parts of the country.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: As no studies have taken place, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman still proposing to go ahead with his assisted places schemes for sixth form pupils, thus further depriving schools of those very pupils that his hon. Friend mentioned? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to conduct a study to see whether the assisted places scheme will benefit individual sixth form pupils and what the effect will be on the schools that they leave?

Mr. Carlisle: The answer should be obvious from our legislation. We intend to go ahead, with our assisted places scheme. The proposal has always been that in the main pupils should go to such schools at the normal age of entry.

Mr. Michael Brown: While a number of sixth form colleges, including that in Scunthorpe, are worthwhile and achieve excellent results, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many comprehensive schools with sixth forms not only deliver the academic results but benefit from the part that sixth forms play?

Mr. Carlisle: I fully accept that, but the situation differs in different parts of the country. I have visited one or two extremely good sixth form colleges, where clearly, as a result, the take-up of education beyond the age of 16 has increased. However, in other areas the demand for sixth form education is sufficient for individual schools to have viable sixth forms. I attempt to take all these factors into account in my decisions on educational provision.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the Minister consider an investigation into sixth form education? Is he aware that many of us feel that open access secondary colleges, as opposed to sixth form colleges, have done a marvellous job in many parts of the country?

Mr. Carlisle: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. However, from his previous experience and connection with the Department of Education and Science he will know that I receive continuing advice from Her Majesty's Inspectors, which includes general advice on the educational merits or otherwise of sixth form colleges.

Higher Education (Spare Places)

Mr. Lee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present estimate of spare places for suitably qualified candidates in higher education.

Dr. Boyson: There is no evidence of any substantial excess of capacity across the country, but there is evidence of spare places on courses in certain subject areas. Since admissions are for individual institutions to determine, I could not specify an exact number of places.

Mr. Lee: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he indicate the courses that have an especially large number of vacancies?

Dr. Boyson: I can tell my hon. Friend' that 18-year-olds who apply for courses


in medicine, law and English will need high grades. Over the past two or three years 18-year-olds who applied for courses in engineering, classics and Russian would have been accepted with reasonable grades.

Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend assure us that those places will not be taken up by foreign students from outside the Commonwealth at the expense of the British taxpayer?

Dr. Boyson: I can say to my hon. Friend that, until last year, had those places been taken up by foreign students from outside the Commonwealth, they would have been subsidised by the British Government by 60 to 70 per cent. Now, those students will at least pay an economic price and not be a burden on our taxpayers and ratepayers.

British Industry (Careers and Opportunities)

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he will take to make careers and opportunities in British industry better known in schools to children before they start A-level specialisation.

Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. and learned Friend will continue to encourage in various ways the improvement of careers education in school and the development of direct links between schools and industry. Both issues are being pursued with urgency in current consultations on a framework for the school curriculum, and in other discussions.

Mr. Renton: Will my hon. Friend accept that in many schools the best pupils, encouraged by their teachers, tend to specialise in the arts and social sciences rather than skills that could be useful in industry? Will my hon. Friend use all his Department's influence with successful British firms to encourage them to visit secondary schools to hawk their wares and make fully known the careers and job opportunities that they have to offer?

Mr. Macfarlane: I think that my hon. Friend has identified the trend of the past 15 years or so. I assure him that the Department of Industry Education Unit and the Department of Education and Science, in conjunction with the local authorities, are doing all they can

to improve this aspect which is so vital to our economic future. A large measure of responsibility, in my opinion, lies with industry itself. Over the past 10 or 15 years industry and commerce in this country have neglected to tell the teaching staff exactly what they want in the schools. In the urgent discussions that I have had with the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce we have been mindful of this point.

Mr. Freeson: Will the Minister tell us when the Government will make their conclusions known on the consultation document on education and vocational training for 16 to 19-year-olds? Will he also take on board the need not just for general careers advice, but for the possibility of initiating specifically vocational education work in this country?

Mr. Macfarlane: This is an aspect which has been acknowledged by the review that I am conducting at present In answer to the specific question, I hope that the 16 to 19-year-old review will be concluded by late autumn. This is an enormous subject which, to a certain extent, embraces the overall philosophy that the country wants for the education of this age group. Certainly we are mindful of the need for training in industry and commerce.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that it is not only the job of industry to tell young men and women about the future for them in industry and commerce, but particularly the job of the leaders of industry to show that they care and are concerned about the future intake to the wealth-producing sector of the British economy?

Mr. Macfarlane: I accept that fully, but it is incumbent on all regions of the country to acknowledge their vital responsibility in this direction.

Mr. Kinnock: In advance of the working party report on education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds, will the Minister replace the rather garbled leak that he gave to the Secondary Heads Association conference on the matter of link courses? Will he say whether he favours link courses, and if so, will he provide funds for such courses and thereby criticise the action of local education authorities, such as Northamptonshire, which, because of the cuts in expenditure, have


actually closed link courses for 16 to 19-year-olds?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Member refers to a speech that I made some months ago at Oxford on a most important subject. I was anxious to test the feelings of the head teachers at that conference. The hon. Member knows that when the country is faced with its present economic situation, I cannot make such a commitment. He knows very well that the economy of this country is the most important aspect at present.

O and A-Level Courses (School sizes)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the minimum size of selective grammar school which is considered sufficient to support viable GCE O and A-level courses; and what is the comparable size for a comprehensive school.

Dr. Boyson: Circumstances vary and it would be inappropriate to be prescriptive about the minimum size of schools. However, one would expect a grammar school of about three forms of entry and a comprehensive school of about eight forms of entry to be able to sustain a balanced range of courses leading to O and A-levels.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for that excellent reply which shows, as always, the flexibility of the Conservative Government. Will my hon. Friend not agree that, where an area has been forced to go comprehensive against the wishes of a large majority of the parents in that area, and where there has been an assumption that sixth-form education would be provided in all the new comprehensive schools thus formed in the reorganisation, it is wrong for the local education authority to renege on the assurance that was given to parents?

Dr. Boyson: Where new schemes have been put into operation at the request of local authorities, it is the responsibility of those authorities to fulfil the aspirations of parents in the area. If they had been promised viable sixth forms and those sixth forms are not available, the local education authorities must provide alternative arrangements.

Mr. Armstrong: Will the Minister bear in mind the educational needs of those

children who are not taking A-level or O-level subjects? They are just as important, probably more so, than the minority who take A and O-levels. Instead of concentrating on specialist courses for these latter children will he bear in mind instead that neighbourhood community schools, offering security and reducing the need for bussing children all over the place are very often in the best interests of childern and provide a better service to the community?

Dr. Boyson: I respect the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) as an ex-schoolmaster. Obviously it is important that all children should have the opportunities to fulfil their talents. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) wants proper sixth-form provision in the comprehensive and grammar schools in his area, similarly one would presume that children who need help to become literate or numerate should have proper provision. This Government believe that by means of the core curriculum, and developments from the fourth and fifth years onwards, this need can be fulfilled.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 6 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later this afternoon I shall visit the Yugoslav embassy to sign the Book of Condolence for President Tito. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Canavan: Has the Prime Minister found time to reflect on the hammering that the Tories deservedly got in last week's local elections, especially in Scotland where Labour now controls 25 district councils? In view of the Tories' stated belief in the freedom of local authorities, and the fact that Labour councillors were elected on manifestos opposed to the Tory cuts in essential spending and to the legislation on the compulsory selling of council houses, will the Prime Minister now abandon these proposals, otherwise


she will face massive confrontation from the elected representatives of the people?

The Prime Minister: The most notable thing in Scotland was the collapse of the Scottish National Party vote.

Mr. Canavan: And the Tories.

The Prime Minister: On the question of the Labour Party's performance in the local elections in England—my goodness, the Labour Party must have been very disappointed with it.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that those who work in the public service and who indulge in the political strike on 14 May will not be paid for that day?

The Prime Minister: I do not imagine that anyone who goes on strike will be paid for the services which will not be rendered that day. However, I hope that people will not go on strike.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the Prime Minister consider some time today whether, when she attends Marshal Tito's funeral—and we all regret his death—she will take the opportunity to have talks with President Brezhnev about the world situation and the need to restrict armaments, particularly the nuclear armaments build-up?

The Prime Minister: I am going to the funeral primarily to pay tribute to President Tito. There will be time for a few bilateral conversations, but not many. These have not yet been fixed.

Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the first leader in The Times newspaper, pointing out how Communism has subverted democracy throughout the world? In this light, has she reflected on the payment of £5,000 to the Communist paper, the Morning Star? Will she, as leader of one great party that won many millions of votes from trade union members in the last election, comment on this? Does she think that there is any prospect of the leader of the other major party, which also won many millions of union votes, commenting on the same matter?

The Prime Minister: I believe that Communism and true democracy are totally incompatible. I believe that that subscription will cause great concern to many members of the Transport and

General Workers Union, who would not dream of approving it themselves.

Mr. Ashley: Does the Prime Minister support the comments of the Secretary of State for the Environment to the effect that local authorities should operate within the law? Since part of that law is the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which is now being flouted by some authorities will she join me in condemning those local authorities and asking the Law Officers of the Crown to take legal action against them?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that if the local authorities were in breach of the law, action would be taken against them, but that is a matter for the Attorney-General and not for me. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I fully support my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, and that position is reciprocal.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the major changes of the last few months is the new respect in which Britain is now held by the rest of the world, based on the increasing competence, sensitivity, and determination now abounding in Britain, which was shown especially by yesterday's events and by all those involved in them? Will she also agree that, after a long period of time, everyone in this country can now once again hold up his head and say how proud he is to be British?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I should like to say one word about events yesterday. It was, I believe, a brilliant operation, carried out by the Special Air Service with courage and confidence. I agree with my hon. Friend that the performance both of the police and the SAS made hon. Members on both sides of the House proud to be British.

Mr. James Callaghan: May I also congratulate all those who had the skill to plan this operation and the courage


of those who carried it out? I express our gratitude at the fact that they succeeded and our sympathy for those who lost their lives. In view of the exchange of correspondence with President Bani-Sadr, does the Prime Minister propose to send him a message to inform him that it is the responsibility of all Governments, including his Government, to resume control of the situation in Tehran and to secure the release of the American hostages and their return to the United States?

The Prime Minister: I sent a message to President Bani-Sadr right at the beginning, defining what I understand and believe to be the legal responsibilities of each and every Government to look after the safety of diplomats on their territory. I believe that the way the operation was carried out in this country will have an effect on the future position of American hostages in Iran. I have replied to President Bani-Sadr. We should now consider how we can turn this superb operation in Britain to best advantage for the American hostages.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister say what advice the Government are now giving to British industry regarding trade with Iran?

The Prime Minister: The Foreign Ministers met yesterday and again today to give further detailed consideration to the communiqué that they issued previously regarding sanctions and Iran. The position will remain as it is at present until it is changed.

Mr. W. Benyon: Did the Prime Minister hear the reports on the BBC this morning concerning the massacre of schoolchildren in Kabul by Soviet forces? If these reports are true, can they be circulated to every athlete who proposes to attend the Olympic Games?

The Prime Minister: I am not in a position either to confirm or deny that report. I hope that British athletes will not go to Moscow so long as Soviet troops are holding down an independent country by force, and atrocities are being committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEATON MOOR

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister if she will visit Heaton Moor.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister explain to pensioners in Heaton Moor why they will have to wait an extra two weeks this year for their uprating and, further, that the amount that the Government save in those two weeks is about the same as pensioners will receive as their Christmas bonus?

The Prime Minister: By the time November comes, a married couple's pension will have gone up by over £12 a week. What is happening is totally in accordance with our undertaking to keep the pension in line with the increase in prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Beith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Lady have an opportunity today to take some action on behalf of the beleaguered and depressed fishing industry? Is she aware how deeply is felt a situation in which the industry sees its markets destroyed by imported, dumped, fish and conservation regulations flouted by just about every other country that fishes in its territories?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman, I believe, is aware, we made a grant of about £3 million to the fishing industry recently. Its distribution is a matter for the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware, from the communiqué issued after the EEC meeting in Luxembourg, that I was not prepared to accept anything for the fishing industry that I believed to be detrimental to our own fishermen. I shall persist with that view.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to advise the National Union of Teachers to follow the example set by other teachers' unions and put the welfare of the children and the wishes of parents before political considerations next Wednesday?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to do so. I believe that example is the most important thing in teaching.

Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Lady take time to reflect on the fact that, contrary to what she keeps saying, a comparison between the growth of the money supply and the rate of inflation shows no relationship at all in Britain over the last five years? Equally, there is no association visible between the two in France, Germany, the United States or Japan over the same period. If she still stubbornly clings to this idea, will she provide the evidence to enable hon. Members to see whether the foundations of her economic policy are built on wishful thinking?

The Prime Minister: No. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's contention. The factor he has left out of account regarding money supply in those countries is that those countries have grown considerably year after year. When that is taken into account, with the money supply, the hon. Gentleman will find that the figures bear a relationship one to another.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several holidaymakers last weekend had their weekends ruined by mobs of skinheads and so-called yobs in seaside resorts? Will she urge her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to increase the number of police and urge on magistrates the need to impose stronger sentences upon these people?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will take every possible step to increase the strength of the police and to see that the law is upheld in this country.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Lady take action to remove the threat to residents in this country who hail from Libya? Will she give instructions for the closing down of the Libyan embassy which is harbouring, it seems, a gang of thugs, bent on shooting and killing people in this country?

The Prime Minister: There have been two cases of murder of Libyan citizens in this country. People are held and being charged with murder at the moment. No one, of course, is guilty of murder until proved guilty. As the matter is sub judice, I think it best to go no further.

Mr. Adley: While everyone in the House will welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has joined my

right hon. Friend in commenting upon recent events at the Iranian embassy, will not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely helpful if the House knew precisely where the Leader of the Opposition and his party stand on the question of the 14 May strike? Will she agree that leadership is demanded not only from our Prime Minister but also, occasionally, from the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I trust that the Opposition Front Bench, as well as the Government, are against strikes for political purposes. Such strikes are wholly contrary to the law in this country.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (LEISURE ACTIVITIES)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Q5. Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister if she will seek to place on the agenda at the next European Council meeting the question of leisure activities in the Community.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that there is a need for the Community to look at leisure activities, in view of the fact that enforced leisure is the fastest growing sector in the Community? Does she not feel that Britain should give a lead in view of the fact that we face not only technological unemployment but the unemployment created by the policies of her Government?

The Prime Minister: With due respect, I think that at the moment the Community has even more important questions to examine and resolve, and that will be so for some time.

Mr. Dykes: In view of my right hon. Friend's strong reiteration last week of the importance of our membership of the Community—in spite of the EEC budget problems—does she agree that the House should dismiss the rather destructive comments of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in the Sunday Express and, therefore, invite him to take extra leisure?

The Prime Minister: I am firmly behind our membership of the European Economic Community. We are trying to turn it into the kind of Community


which does not devote such a large proportion of its budget to agriculture. However, we must accept and admit that the work of the Community, particularly in co-operation over foreign affairs, has been excellent and is not hindered in any way by a number of disagreements about internal matters.

IRANIAN EMBASSY, LONDON

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, make a further statement about the taking of hostages by armed gunmen at the Iranian embassy.
As the House is aware, this incident was brought to a conculsion yesterday evening following an assault by members of the Special Air Service Regiment. I regret that it proved necessary to resort to the use of force, but there was in the end no alternative. The terrorists killed two hostages. The outcome of the assault, I believe, speaks for itself. Of the 19 hostages known to be alive when the assault took place, all were rescued. Sixteen have already been discharged from hospital. Three remain there. Four gunmen are believed to have been killed in the assault and another is in police custody. None escaped. There were no police or SAS casualties.
Throughout five days of the siege, the Metropolitan Police patiently sought to negotiate towards a peaceful conclusion. As a result of their efforts, five hostages were, progressively, released. On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself I made it clear to the Commissioner that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to give in to the terrorists' demands for a safe conduct out of this country. Subject to that overriding consideration, we did everything in our power to persuade the terrorists peacefully to surrender and free the hostages. It was in the light of that policy that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office sought the assistance of some ambassadors from certain Middle East countries, but help from that source was not possible. The Commissioner of Police underlined the approach that his officers were taking in a personal written message that was delivered into the Iranian embassy yesterday. The help of a Muslim imam was also sought. He spoke personally to the gunmen in an attempt to persuade them not to take action that would be damaging both to their hostages and to themselves.
As yesterday progressed it became increasingly clear, however, that the days of patient negotiation and of personal


direct appeals were not going to achieve their objectives. From the start of the seige, the gunmen regularly threatened to kill hostages if demands were not met. As soon as it became clear that they had begun to carry out those threats, I authorised, at the Commissioner's request, the commitment of the SAS.
I know that the House will wish to join with me in congratulating the Metropolitan Police on an operation that they carried out with skill, care and determination. Their conduct throughout was an example of the highest standards of the British police. The success of the final assault and rescue is an outstanding tribute to the professionalism and bravery of the SAS. I am sure that the House, and, indeed, the country, will wish to join the Government in giving thanks to all those involved—police, military or civilian. Our sympathy goes to the families and friends of those hostages who have been killed or injured.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would simply add this: the way in which this incident was conducted and resolved demonstrates conclusively the determination of the British Government and people not to allow terrorist blackmail to succeed.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Opposition believe that he was right, as the Secretary of State in charge of the operation in the last six days, to take time for negotiations and discussion before deciding to act in the way that we saw last evening on television? Is he aware that we believe that the overall operation was well carried out and that it shows the merit of the procedures built up for operational control at two levels—ministerially and with the police? On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, may I ask him to convey our tribute to the bravery shown by many of those involved—the police, the SAS, and other individuals? We echo his sympathy for the relatives of those who were killed.
Is the Home Secretary aware that we believe that he was right to bring in the SAS at an early stage, just in case they needed to be used? Is he aware that we believe that the right note was struck a moment ago by him and by the Commissioner last night, which is to the credit of all concerned? There is a feeling that all has gone well and that we have won

something, but it was not expressed in that way. Last night it was said that it was a matter of deep regret that the siege had to be ended by violence. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I believe that that is the right approach to such a matter?
Is the Home Secretary further aware that we believe that the Government were right to make it clear that in no way will any British Government be prepared to offer safe conduct to those who commit criminal acts? Does he agree that lessons are to be drawn from the events of the last six days, operationally and in general?
May I ask the Home Secretary a number of questions, which should be asked now that the events are over? Given the spread of Middle East terrorism to this country, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to impress on Middle East embassies that passports should not be given under any pretext to people who are not their nationals? Will he remind them that the carriage of arms under diplomatic protection is an unfriendly act?
What is going on in the Libyan embassy? Are the people working there officially accredited to this country? I bring to the Home Secretary's notice what the Americans have done in that respect.
What steps are being taken to deal with Colonel Gadaffi's threat to liquidate Libyan nationals in Britain unless they return home? That threat has been made, and steps must be taken to ensure that it does not happen.
We accept students from all parts of the world who come to our universities and polytechnics. Long may that continue. It is an important part of our life. However, why is it so easy for Iranians to come here to follow courses that have sprung up in institutions in different parts of the country when Asians and West Indians who want to come here to study are forbidden to do so? Will the Home Secretary examine the ease with which Iranian students can come here for that purpose?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous tribute to all those involved in the operation. As he and the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate, planning in advance of such operations has


been conducted by successive Governments and was most important when it came to the moment of carrying out the operation. I pay tribute to all the planning that has been done in the past. It was extremely important.
I shall certainly draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about Middle East terrorism, passports, and the carriage of arms. As to the Libyan embassy position, we have made it clear that we expect the law in our country to be carried out. I note the right hon. Gentleman's question and shall consider carefully what he said.
Concerning the last point, I would, of course, point out that under the amended immigration rules that I introduced recently the regulations to deal with those who might be described as bogus students were greatly tightened up. Nevertheless, I think that the right hon. Gentleman makes a broader point, which is taken by many people in this country, and I undertake to look into that as well.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Home Secretary aware that my colleagues and I would wish to be associated with the tributes to the patience and courage of the police and the SAS and, in particular, to the high standard of competence shown in this operation?

Mr. Skinner: He wants a share of the action.

Mr. Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that we wish to be associated with the remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about the lesson that the Iranian Government should learn from this episode? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will—without necessarily giving details to the House—undertake to review the standard of protection that we offer to politically sensitive embassies in London?

Mr. Whitelaw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said and I am glad that he and his colleagues wish to be associated with the tributes to those concerned in the operation. Of course, it is our duty to afford protection to the various embassies, but I would add that the embassies themselves have a considerable duty to organise their own protection,

and many of them do that. All embassies should carefully consider that issue, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Churchill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the heroic actions of 5 May command the admiration not only of the nation but of the world? Does he further agree that, by contrast, they make the TUC's politically motivated day of inaction on 14 May appear all the more petty and futile?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think, perhaps, that I would be wise to confine my remarks to my responsibilities as Home Secretary. They seem to have been quite sufficient in themselves in recent days.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Home Secretary confirm the understanding that the reference at the end of his statement to the determination of the British Government and people applies equally to all parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Back: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House wishes to be associated with the congratulations to the SAS and the police force? We should also like to congratulate him on taking the bold decision to send in the SAS. Was their action not further acknowledgment of the sheer professionalism of our forces? Will my right hon. Friend seek to mark, in some way, the marvellous success of this operation, if not by the striking of a medal, at least in a manner that demonstrates how we appreciate what has been done on this occasion?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what my hon. and learned Friend said about all who took part in the operation, and I am also grateful to him for his personal reference to me. I can only say that such was the care with which all the operations were planned that the final decision had to be taken by the Home Secretary. Of course, if things go right it is good; if things do not go right the situation can indeed be very difficult. However, that decision is one of the easier actions to take in the final event. I appreciate that I might not be standing here saying that today had events turned out differently.

Mr. Mellish: Speaking as a Londoner, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to convey to the Commissioner of Police


of the Metropolis the deep appreciation of all Londoners for the magnificent job that the police did during the seige? Will the Home Secretary also convey to the Commissioner the fact that the vast majority of Londoners respect and admire the police force and wish them well?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I will certainly pass on that message to the Commissioner. I think that it would be appropriate for me to say, having been in close contact with the Commissioner over all these days, that I greatly admired his personal courage and steadfastness during an extremely difficult operation. I should like this House to know that. I shall be pleased to pass on to him the congratulations offered not only to him but to all the members of his force. Such congratulations are extremely well deserved.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two more hon. Gentlemen only from either side.

Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as has already been said, not only the whole House but the whole world will congratulate the SAS and the Metropolitan Police on the way in which this matter was handled? Does he agree that it is time that some action was taken to prevent non-British people demonstrating in this country, thus putting our police forces at risk? Is it not time that we considered telling foreigners that if they wish to demonstrate they should demonstrate in their own countries?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in support of all those who carried out the operation. Concerning demonstrators, we have recently published a Green Paper on public order, which raises many questions, including the one referred to by my hon. Friend. It is important that we should consider these questions together. They raise difficult issues about freedom in a democratic society, which we in this House would do well to ponder carefully.

Mr. Ogden: Was any request made by the Home Secretary or the Commissioner to radio, television and news reporters to be cautious in their reporting

in order to deny to those inside the embassy information that might have hindered security operations? Has the Home Secretary any information on the reason why the attitude of the terrorists, who at one time were showing a degree of humanity by releasing hostages, suddenly changed to murdering them? Will he accept that the important question is not how successful we were in getting people out but how they came to be in that situation in the first place?

Mr. Whitelaw: Inevitably, events such as this are a matter of major public concern. They are, therefore, bound to be covered by TV and radio. Had there been a moment when it was felt necessary to ask the authorities concerned to exercise restraint, that restraint would have been asked for, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that such an occasion did not, in the final event, arise.
As to the hon. Gentleman's other point, I would prefer to go no further into the details of the operation. I think that I would be wise not to do so.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has not this event—like many others—underlined that the first social service that any Government owes to its people is the maintenance of the Queen's peace? Will my right hon. Friend therefore dismiss all those calls that have been heard recently in this House for the abolition of the Special Patrol Group, for the standing down of the Special Air Service, for the reduction of powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, for the reduction of MI5 and the security services, and for the control by the borough of Lewisham of the operations of the Metropolitan Police?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is well known that I believe that the maintenance of the services that look after and protect our citizens is of vital importance. I believe that those service must be preserved and encouraged in all their forms. I have never disguised from the House my view on that. The way in which we employ the British police service is of enormous importance.
What pleases me about this operation is that we brought it to a successful conclusion while, at the same time, preserving the highest standards of the British police service and demonstrating that we have a community police service in this country.

Mr. Edward Lyons: While I share in the general satisfaction, may I ask the Home Secretary about the surviving gunman? Bearing in mind that the alleged killings took place within the Iranian embassy, is this man to be repatriated to Iran or is he to be tried in the courts of this country?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand, on advice, that he is to be subject to the due process of law in this country.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice, arising out of your statement on Thursday, reported in col. 1641 of Hansard. As one who has been plaguing Prime Ministers since 15 December 1970 on questions about the Diego Garcia base, may I ask for your protection in relation to the ruling by the Prime Minister? It seems to many of us that Downing Street has ruled out these questions because they are inconvenient to the Prime Minister.
May I ask a direct question, even if it be a bit hypothetical? If we are not to be allowed to put questions on movements through allied bases, does it mean that, for example, we cannot ask questions about movements of food aid to Kampuchea? Indeed, would you rule on the whole issue of questions that are blocked suddenly and rather uncharacteristically by the Prime Minister in this way?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice this morning that he would raise this matter this afternoon. It gave me an opportunity to prepare a considered statement in reply to his point of order.
There is a long-standing rule of the House that a question may not be tabled if it is already fully covered by an answer or by a refusal to answer. In 1972 the House relaxed the rule, which previously applied for a whole Session, so that information refused in answer to a question may now be asked for again in three months' time.
The Prime Minister has refused to confirm or deny movements through allied bases. Any question on this subject must therefore, be tested against that refusal by the Table Office and, if the question is referred to me, by myself. Obviously I cannot rule on particular questions

until I have considered them, and I am sure that the House would not expect me to comment on any hypothetical questions that hon. Members might have in mind.

MEMBERS' CONSTITUENCY INTERESTS

Mr. Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 24 July last, in response to a point of order from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) complaining about a question by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), you gave a ruling to which, in your own words, you gave particular stress. You said:
 I first want to give a ruling on a very important question. The wider constituencies belonging to the Assembly of Europe have no bearing at all upon us here. I treat every hon. Member as a Member for the constituency for which he or she was elected to this House."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 349–50.]
That was a ruling which, with respect to you, Mr. Speaker, was still somewhat open to interpretation. Indeed, the following day the parliamentary correspondent of The Guardian made his interpretation—an interpretation with which I felt I agreed, but hon. Members may differ—and said:
The Speaker of the Commons yesterday ruled that a Euro MP could not raise constituency problems of another Westminster MP simply because they come within his or her Euro boundaries.
That interpretation, so far as I know, has neither been confirmed nor denied by anybody. The Guardian correspondent on that occasion interpreted your words, Mr. Speaker—
 I treat every hon. Member here as a Member for the constituency for which he or she was elected to this House"—
as meaning that the rights of Euro MP's extended
 only to constituencies for which they were elected to this House.
If that interpretation is correct, it must have clear implications also in regard to what is to be regarded as proper behaviour for a Member elected only to this House vis-a-vis another Member's constituency, not least because the hon. Member for Lancaster is a Member of this House. Certainly this view is widely held.
I recall to the House that the Home Secretary, during an exchange on this matter on 15 November 1979, said:
 In my 25 years in the House, I always understood that it was a condition and a principle amongst hon. Members that we did not interfere with cases in each other's constituencies."—[Official Report, 15 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 1503–4.]
That is certainly a principle to which I have sought, in the 15 years that I have been here, to have meticulous regard. At the same time, all the advice that I have been able to obtain suggests that this convention is not inviolate, but, like most sensible conventions, has to be subject to reasonable exceptions. But the fact that there are exceptions does not mean that the convention can be ignored altogether.
Clearly a large number of hon. Members have within their constituencies big industrial concerns, airports, railway stations or whatever, which have general interest. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Johnston: The example that I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, has certain, but not all, of these aspects. It is here that I seek your guidance. I am sure that it is within your recollection that it was announced a week ago today in the late afternoon that the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It must be very difficult for the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) chattering all the time whilst he is trying to speak—and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). [Interruption.] I know that it was two hon. Members, but it is very unfair and ill mannered.

Mr. Johnston: Mr. Johnston rose—

Mr. Skinner: I get the blame for everything.

Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, it will be within your recollection that it was announced a week ago today, in the late afternoon, that the pulp mill at Fort William in my constituency was to close, affecting 450 people directly and others outside. You will remember that, on the Wednesday, I sought by private notice to raise a question on this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know the rules of order. He must not refer to any private notice question that has come my way and not been accepted. The whole House understands that that is important.

Mr. Johnston: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is being ill mannered again.

Mr. Johnston: In any event, the following day, Thursday, I went to my constituency and visited Fort William. In consequence, I put down two written questions on the issue to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
On the next day, Friday, I learnt that a motion was on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and the names of 22 other hon. Members expressing concern about the issue. I mention that not to complain about it—far from it, because it seemed a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do—but to make the point about the difficulty facing hon. Members in deciding where the line is drawn.
However, I also learnt that there were seven written questions down on the subject by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). With six of these I would not in any way quarrel, but I should have thought that the convention of the House would suggest that the civilised and sensible thing to do was for the hon. Gentleman to give me some notice of it.
However—and this is the point that I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker—if you take the first question that he raised —[Interruption.]

Mr. Skinner: Everybody is talking now.

Mr. Johnston: I am sure that you would agree with me that matters of principle are often tedious—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman would come to his point of order, it would help us all.

Mr. Johnston: Indeed, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Garscadden
 asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit Fort William to discuss with the local


authorities, the Fort William action group and other interested bodies the closure of the pulp mill and its impact on the area.
Is not that clearly a matter which affects a constituency Member principally and primarily? What is the convention? Is there a convention? How is it applied, if it is to be applied? Surely it is not irrelevant to ask that the hon. Member for Garscadden, who is also the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish affairs, ought to have a particular care for, to use the words of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) who raised the matter earlier, the rights and privileges of constituency Members and not simply to raise the constituency matters as and when he feels appropriate.

Mr. Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may offer a very brief explanation and, perhaps, an apology for any aggravations which may have arisen from my actions.
I think that it would be common ground in all parts of the House that in Scotland the closure of the pulp mill at Corpach is a matter of national concern, which engages the attention of people involved in politics throughout Scotland. It was on that basis that I took an interest in the matter. I imagine that it would be common concern on all Benches that everything possible should be done to save all the jobs in this very exposed industrial outpost in the Highlands.
I was one of a group of Members who put down an early-day motion in connection with that, and in conjunction with that motion I put down seven written questions. I spoke earlier today with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who was good enough to say that he took no exception to six of them but that he took exception to the seventh, to which he has very properly referred in his remarks.
In retrospect, I regret that that question was included. It was one of a series. I hope that the House will accept that enthusiasm ran away with me. Certainly there was no intention of encrouching upon the proper preserve of the hon. Member or of embarrassing him in any way. I regret it, but I hope that the House will accept that point. I have known the hon. Member for more years than I care to think of, long before either of us became Members of this House

and I have a healthy respect for him. The question has not yet been answered, and I have arranged for its withdrawal. If I have unintentionally caused offence to the hon. Member or to the House in terms of its conventions, I certainly apologise.

Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged, and the House is obliged, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Before we leave this matter, I merely say that, from my own long years of service on those green Benches, I am aware that hon. Members are more sensitive about their own constituencies than about anything else. The hon. Member for Garscadden has cleared up the matter.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, the fact that the convention is very often broken by one of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I make no complaint. Indeed, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) very often transgresses into other constituencies when putting down questions, and not once have objections from my colleagues been registered. I believe that there are circumstances in which it is perfectly legitimate to ask such questions, but I object to the Liberal Party claiming certain privileges and to those privileges not extending right across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a Standing Order but a convention and a matter of good taste that we try not to interfere in one another's constituency affairs.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I was referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), and further to his point of order, perhaps I might say that I would support his view that there are many points—I seek your advice on this matter—which are, as the hon. Member said, of general interest to all hon. Members, and one of these is the European regional fund. It is in the interests of all hon. Members and the country in general that we get the best possible value from this fund. I very much hope that nothing in any ruling that you have ever given prevents hon. Members from seeking to get the maximum benefit for this country from that fund.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady should remember that those who are Members of the European Parliament have their opportunity there to ask what questions they like. So far as I am concerned in this House, I believe that we must recognise the centuries-old tradition that an hon. Member speaks here for the constituency and for the country generally, but, in particular, I recognise him as the Member for such-and-such a constituency, and the European Parliament is recognised by hon. Members as a different body.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY (STATEMENT)

Mr. English: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the statement of the Secretary of State for Industry on Thursday last.
You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that paragraph (4) of that Standing Order says that
In determining whether a matter is urgent Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House... by other means.
You will also recollect, Mr. Speaker, that, as reported at column 1643 of Hansard for Thursday 1 May, you, with entire propriety, said that you had taken note of the fact that the usual channels were likely to discuss this matter. Unfortunately, as far as we can determine, the usual channels may conceivably have discussed this matter but they did so after the Leader of the House had told the press that he was not going to do anything about it.
The degree of consideration that the right hon. Gentleman gave through the usual channels he himself announced on Friday, when he also said of the matter, that
it is not as urgent as all that."—[Official Report, 2 May 1980; Vol. 983, c. 1768.]
I think that it is quite clear that the matter must be urgent, since the Secretary of State for Industry was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Mr. Silkin) whether he could give us the authority under which he was making payments to Lazard Freres.
The point at issue, surely, is that the Secretary of State for Industry made a statement on Thursday which I wish to have debated by the House. He is making payments to Lazard Freres. I have no doubt that the Crown can, if it wishes, on the advice of a Minister, pay a person for whatever services it wishes. I know of no authority whereby a foreign company can be paid to release that person. There may be such authority, and one would have thought that at column 1634 of Hansard the Secretary of State for Industry would have explained what the authority was, instead of which he merely said:
The authority is the agreement of my colleagues".—[Official Report, 1 May 1980; Vol. 983, c. 1634.]
With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is not the law of the land. It may be that the law should be changed, in which case the Secretary of State should have announced that a Bill was to be introduced to change the law. The urgency of this matter, contrary to the understanding of the Leader of the House, is that this matter, it would seem, is being agreed before 1 July. Some agreement is being entered into which may or may not be in accordance with the law of the land, if it is not in accordance with the law of the land, this House should have the right to alter that law or to consider whether it wishes to do so. If it is in accordance with the law of the land, why was it that the Secretary of State was not informed by his civil servants of what authority he had? He does not seem to know. Certainly we do not know. In the whole course of the many leaks that have occurred over the weekend, no one has leaked the authority—the Act—that the right hon. Gentleman possesses for the statement that he made on Thursday.
I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that before any further agreements are entered into, this House has a right to discuss the matter. I seek your authority, under Standing Order No. 9, to allow the House to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific


and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the statement of the Secretary of State for Industry on Thursday last
—and I think that I may add the words
and the Act under which he is acting.
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I listened very carefully to the exchanges on Friday, which were quite clear. I have re-read them this morning in view of what the hon. Gentleman said. As the House knows, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the hon. Member's representations, but I have to rule that they do not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LANCASHIRE)

Mr. Straw: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the accelerating number of mill closures and redundancies in the Lancashire textile industry".
I make the application because of the shattering announcements at the end of last week by Courtauld and Carrington Viyella of the closure of eight mills and establishments, together employing 1,500 people or more. One of the mills, Courtauld's Imperial mill, is in my constituency and employs more than 300 people. It survived the economic ravages of the 1930's but has been unable to survive those of this Government. The Courtauld announcement brings the total of that firm's job losses over the past 18 months alone to a staggering 7,200.
These closures come hard on the heels on announcements by Messrs. Tootal of 1,200 redundancies in the Lancashire textile industry and of many other annonuncements of closures and redundancies. In the spinning and weaving sectors alone, announcements have been made this year of closures of 20 mills.

and 22 other firms have announced redundancies short of closure.
The total of job losses announced in just four months of this year stands at 4,600, which is almost equal to the figure of 5,300 for the whole of last year—itself one of the worst years on record.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly warned the Government that closures on such a scale would occur if adequate support for the industry were not forthcoming. But the Government have taken no effective action. They have sat on their hands and have repeatedly refused requests for debates from hon. Members on both sides. Given the Government's attitude, it is clear that it is unlikely that the issue could come up for urgent debate by any means other than an application under Standing Order No. 9.
The urgency of the matter is that, unless there is prompt Government action, there will be even more closures and large sections of the industry will, without question, be wiped out. In an urgent plea to me this morning, the Blackburn and District Textile Manufacturers Association said that unless the decline is arrested the industry will suffer "irreparable losses".
Textile and clothing is still the third largest industry in this country, and for the communities involved, as well as for the country as a whole, the closures are at least as serious as those taking place in the steel industry. Sadly, however, they have received less attention, because the total job loss figures are made up of many separate closure and redundancy decisions rather than one single dramatic decision and announcement, as in the steel industry. The numbers to be thrown out of work in the textile and clothing industry are equivalent to, for example, those made redundant at the Shotton and Corby steel works.
With those considerations in mind, you, Mr. Speaker, may recall that on 16 July last year you granted an application made under Standing Order No. 9 by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) regarding the Shotton steel closure. I respectfully ask you to do likewise on this equally important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek


leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the accelerating number of mill closures and redundancies in the Lancashire textile industry".
The hon. Member referred to the emergency debate on Shotton, but I remind him and the House that every application stands on its own. There was an application for an emergency debate on Corby which was not successful.
The House has instructed me not to give reasons for my decision. The hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that his is one of a series of recent applications under Standing Order No. 9 for debates about redundancies in individual constituencies. I merely remind the House that the hon. Gentleman is not alone in his application.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to a serious matter. I listened with care and concern to what he said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

HOUSE OF LORDS (ABOLITION)

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the House of Lords.
The last time that this issue came before the House, when there was a Division, was 16 June 1976, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) sought leave, which was refused, to bring in a Bill for the same purpose. I believe that this Parliament should have an opportunity to express a view in principle on the issue. In addition, many of my new hon. Friends wish to place their views on record, so that back in the constituencies those who sent them here can see where they stand on this matter.
In addition, on the Labour side there is now unity on the issue, because, since my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover introduced his Bill, we have had a resolution carried at the 1977 Labour Party conference:
This Conference declares that the House of Lords is a negation of democracy and calls upon the Government, the Parliamentary Party and the National Executive Committee to take every possible step open to them to secure the total abolition of the House of Lords, and the reform of Parliament into an efficient single chamber, legislating body without delay.
The resolution was carried—I have to say this for the benefit of those who report our proceedings—by a majority of constituency parties, as well as by the block votes. It was carried by 6¼ million votes to 91,000. Those figures clearly show that it was carried by a majority of constituency parties.
It is true that in 1979 we in the Labour Party had a slight hiccup on this issue, but the abolition of the House of Lords is clearly on the agenda for the special conference of the party organised for 31 May and, according to The Times—and I know this from my right hon. Friends—the Labour leadership is unanimous on the issue. Indeed, I suspect that the Division Lists on my Bill, which is one which the Government Chief Whip will now allow to go through unopposed, will be widely circulated to delegates to the conference.
Two red herrings have to be disposed of. I should make clear that no plan to


abolish the House of Lords would affect the appeals procedure carried out by the Lords of Appeal. That is one red herring put up when the case is made for the abolition of the legislative body. The Law Lords are appointed, under a different Act from that which deals with life peers.
Secondly, it is not good enough for Labour peers to tell us that we should concentrate on the economic and social issues of the day. You, Mr. Speaker, must know, as my hon. Friends and Conservative Back Benchers know, that no radical reforming Labour Government ever stood, or will ever stand, a chance of getting to grips with those major issues unless we tackle first the constitutional issue at the other end of Parliament. Peers are still, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, the Tory long-stop, and that is a negation of democracy.
Of course, the abolition of the House of Lords does not mean the status quo for this place. In fact, the job—if we can call it that—done in another place could, with modifications to our procedures, easily be done here. I shall not go into detail, but some of the modifications could reduce the powers of the Whips on both sides. There may be a role for the House of Commons Commission. You preside over that body, Mr. Speaker, and you always tell us that you do not even recognise the existence of the Whips in this place. There is a case for modifying our procedures to enable us to overcome the problem that may be raised when we get rid of the so-called revising role of the House of Lords.
The House of Lords is a part of our constitutional system which democracy cannot reach. That is why I and my hon. Friends have made speeches such as this time and again. Peers have no authority and no special qualification to rule over our people. There is no reason why the children of people who were appointed under the hereditary system should make laws over the children of people outside.
I come to the question of the Duke of Norfolk. I have said both inside and outside this House that I am prepared to attack what the Lords did on 13 March. I agreed with what they did on its merits, but if we in this House stay silent when the Lords overturn the will

of the elected House we are devaluing our case when later we come to abolish them. I believe that we must place that firmly on record. On that day, of course, there was a record attendance in the other place—328. That is an important figure and I will come to it later.
The Lords cannot be trusted to do a job. They cannot be trusted—and this has been seen this year on the Social Security (No. 1) Bill, which is before them—to defend the rights of pensioners. Half the members of the House of Lords are over pension age anyway and one in five of them is over 75. Yet they, with this extra qualification which I have not got, could not find it in their hearts to vote for the pensioners who are under attack by this Government, and they are likely to act similarly when the rest of the Tory Government's legislation to dismantle the Welfare State which they are bouncing through this House comes before their Lordships.
This is how we have to judge their Lordships performance—on how they look at the merits of an issue and cast their votes. We know that in all there are nearly 1,200 members of the House of Lords. I am told by the Library, which has been told by the Whips, that 436 take the Tory Whip, and that is not the real figure because the Tory Whips told the Library that they send a lot of those out for old time's sake. They are leaving that stinking and sinking ship so fast it is unbelievable. Only 164 take the Labour Whir;—and that does not square with the number of life peers made by Labour Prime Ministers either.
We would expect the life peers to be making a greater contribution. We are led to believe that they are made members of the other place for their expertise, their knowledge and not just their past but their future contributions. There are 32 life peers who have not yet made their maiden speech and 23 of them have been there for over 18 months. The showbiz gang, the Lords Grade and Delfont, have yet to make their maiden speeches. This is no criticism of their Lordships; I am just putting it on record that they have not had a chance to make the contribution for which they were appointed peers. We all know that "Lady Lilac" of note paper fame, the noble Baroness Lady Falkender, has not yet had a chance to make her maiden speech, and that is a loss that we all feel.
Not making speeches in the House of Lords does not mean that their Lordships do not attend, of course; Hon. Members should not believe that. In fact, it is on record that over the past few years their Lordships' average daily attendance has been increasing. It has increased almost every year for the past four or five years, and it may be six when this year's figures come out. The last full year for which I have the figures is 1977–78, when the average attendance was 282, that is, those who claimed and signed on. The average number staying for the Divisions in that year, however, was 135. Less than half of those who clocked in to get the £36 a day which they can claim for their fee and attendance allowance stayed. It will be noted that three times that number came down on 13 March.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, instead of sending his people to stand outside the homes of decent law-abiding widows in Birmingham, should send his shock troops to the other place, because some people outside may say, and constituents have said to me, that they are clearly ripping off the public purse. They do not do a good job and they have no qualification for being there. It is firmly on record that there is unanimity on this issue on this side of the House and it has been thrashed out at our conference. It is only right that, it being four years since we last had an opportunity to deal with it in another Parliament, this Parliament ought to be given the chance to put its views on record.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has given me notice that he wishes to oppose the motion.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely): I oppose the motion moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The House will notice the terror that he inspired in the Benches of the Lords in the Gallery, which are currently flooded by one Liberal peer.
We have had debates on the abolition of the House of Lords before now. This matter tends to come before this House at times of frustration on the part of the Opposition, especially when the Opposition are a Labour Opposition, who, as the

hon. Member for Perry Barr said, have never found it possible to get more than 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of the peers to accept the Whip.
The last Ten-Minute Bill—at devolution time, four years ago—was moved by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), or, as was said at the time, perhaps the future Lord Bolsover; possibly—if he satisfied the criteria of the right hon. Lady—Viscount Claycross. He asked what the Lords had ever done to deserve accommodation in the Palace of Westminster, let alone a voice in our legislative system. The House will recall that this was at a time when the then Prime Minister had ennobled his grocer, his publisher and his raincoat-maker. In the ensuing vote it was interesting to notice that among the people who opposed it were my then hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery—Mr. Emlyn Hooson—and the then right hon. Member for Fulham—Mr. Michael Stewart—both of whom seem to have changed their minds and are now sitting in the other place.
But the motion on that day was lost, as I hope it will be today, and while on that day we did vote on party lines, with the exception, on this side of the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and me, I hope that on this occasion hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will bear in mind the debt of gratitude that I think we owe the Lords on the matter of school transport, as dealt with in the Education (No. 2) Bill. The Lords came from wherever Lords come from and they voted handsomely that enough was enough from the Front Bench representatives of the Department of Education and Science. Their vote was against the dedicated life-long party advice; it was a significant vote. As a result, families were not penalised in respect of their children's education for living where they do. I think what have unkindly been called "the Iron Lady's bovver boys in ermine" performed a service beyond praise.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that with the Lords established down the corridor there was no chance of constitutional change. I should like to put it to him that Labour Governments have done pretty well in the nationalisation of steel, transport and aerospace, and if this was not unradical and unconstitutional I should like to know what it was.
Of course the Lords have no right to rule, but my submission is that they do not rule. If we had an ideal House of Commons, perfectly representing the nation, always moderate, never passionate, abounding in men of leisure and never omitting the slow and steady forms necessary for good consideration, it is quite certain that we should not need a higher Chamber. The work would be done so well that we should not need anyone to revise it, or take another look at it, because in government whatever is unnecessary is pernicious.
The fact is that our House is not ideal. It is less perfect in its representation of national opinion than any nation that calls itself a democracy. We have had Governments who have sought to speak for the people of Britain. In 1970 the Government was elected by 33·4 per cent. of those who had a vote. In February 1974 that figure went down to 29·3 per cent. and in October 1974 to 28·6 per cent. To put it another way, every time the Prime Minister of the day addressed a representative 100 of his people, 71·4 of them did not endorse his policies, or certainly did not vote for them. In 1979 the figure rose to 33·3 per cent.—still a pittance.
Throughout that time the Opposition have opposed. While they represented a considerable majority of the people, their chance of success lay in resorting to the sort of gestures that the hon. Member for Perry Barr and I have had to indulge in in respect of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, or in looking to our longstop in the House of Lords.
What do the Lords do? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing."] On average, they sit for 155 days in the year. For 52 per cent. of that time they are examining, revising and scrutinising legislation. That is a fact, whatever Labour Members feel. Twenty-

two per cent. of their time is spent debating matters of public interest, and 12 per cent. is spent initiating legislation —legislation like the Abortion Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) had the opportunity of making into an Act in 1967.

The Lords have no real power, other that that of what their enemies call
"delay" and perhaps their friends refer to as "the power to make us in this House think again".

The Lords are not ideal, as I am sure they would agree, but a country that can ill afford Her Majesty's Opposition, whose job is to oppose regardless of the issue, needs a second Chamber, if only to stop an attempt to perpetuate the Government of the day. The Lords are currently our only protection against the abandonment of the five-year rule. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me about the need for the people of Britain to be given the opportunity to replace the Government of the day—perhaps, in particular, that of the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister. This must not be denied them.

Sir W. S. Gilbert wrote:
The House of Peers, throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well".

There is an immaculate argument in favour of reform and democratisation of the Lords. But abolition and the ensuing single Chamber would do us no good.

I therefore urge the House to oppose the motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 240.

Division No. 281]
AYES
[4.32 pm


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Crowther, J. S.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchan, Norman
Cryer, Bob


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Dewar, Donald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cartwright, John
Dixon, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dubs, Alfred


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cook, Robin F.
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Eastham, Ken




Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Litherland, Robert
Sever, John


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheerman, Barry


Evans, John (Newton)
McCartney, Hugh
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Ewing, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Field, Frank
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Silverman, Julius


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Magee, Bryan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Foulkes, George
Marks, Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Soley, Clive


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Spriggs, Leslie


George, Bruce
Maxton, John
Stallard, A. W.


Graham, Ted
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael
Stoddart, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian
Stott, Roger


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Straw, Jack


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Haynes, Frank
Morton, George
Tilley, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley
Watkins, David


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Michael


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Homewood, William
Park, George
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


John, Brynmor
Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kerr, Russell
Radice, Giles
Wright, Sheila


Kinnock, Neil
Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton East)


Lambie, David
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)



Lamborn, Harry
Robertson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Leighton, Ronald
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Frank Dobson and


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Roper, John
Mr. Reg Race.


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, John Selwyn


Aitken, Jonathan
Corrie, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Ancram, Michael
Crouch, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arnold, Tom
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hannam, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Dickens, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Paul


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Dorrell, Stephen
Hayhoe, Barney


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heddle, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dover, Denshore
Henderson, Barry


Banks, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Sir Ronald
Durant, Tony
Hill, James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Dykes, Hugh
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Eggar, Timothy
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Berry, Hon Anthony
Elliott, Sir William
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Blackburn, John
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Blaker, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairgrieve, Russell
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Faith, Mrs Shella
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fell, Anthony
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Brinton, Tim
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kimball, Marcus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brotherton, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knight, Mrs Jill


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forman, Nigel
Lamont, Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fox, Marcus
Lang, Ian


Buck, Antony
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Latham, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lawson, Nigel


Butcher, John
Freud, Clement
Le Marchant, Spencer


Butler, Hon Adam
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Goodlad, Alastair
Luce, Richard


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gow, Ian
McCrindle, Robert


Channon, Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond
Macfarlane, Neil


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
MacGregor, John


Churchill, W. S.
Greenway, Harry
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
McQuarrie, Albert


Colvin, Michael
Grist, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Cope, John
Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)







Mates, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mather, Carol
Pollock, Alexander
Stokes, John


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawby, Ray
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tapsell, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Prior, Rt Hon James
Tebbit, Norman


Mayhew, Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Raison, Timothy
Thompson, Donald


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Rathbone, Tim
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Renton, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Moate, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert
Waddington, David


Molyneux, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Monro, Hector
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wakeham, John


Moore, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morgan, Geraint
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Rost, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Mudd, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Ward, John


Murphy, Christopher
Sandelson, Neville
Warren, Kenneth


Myles, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Needham, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Nelson, Anthony
Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Silvester, Fred
Whitney, Raymond


Newton, Tony
Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Ogden, Eric
Skeet, T. H. H.
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Onslow, Cranley
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stainton, Keith
Younger, Rt Hon George


Parris, Matthew
Stanbrook, Ivor



Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stanley, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Patten, John (Oxford)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Pattie, Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony
Mr. Stephen Ross.


Percival, Sir Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

SOCIAL SECURITY (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee
1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 12th May.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 12th May may continue until 11 p.m. whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 13th May.

Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after Ten o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the

Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days
7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private Business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;


(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the question that Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required

of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation
13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;

the Bill" means the Social Security (No. 2) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Whatever emotions may have been expressed by the Opposition about this timetable motion, I guess that surprise was not among them. The Opposition have made it abundantly clear from the start that they are deeply opposed to the Bill and would use any legitimate parliamentary tactic to delay it. As the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) put it near the start of the Committee stage:
We shall not facilitate the passage of this Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 22 April 1980, c. 18.]

That remark showed an uncharacteristic modesty of expression. The right hon. Gentleman has been as good as has word.


By the time the Committee adjourned at 8.30 pm last Thursday, our achievement after 44 hours of debate was that we were still on clause 1. It is clear beyond a peradventure that without this timetable motion the Bill would have little prospect of reaching the statute book.

Yet it is essential that the Bill should become law. You would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to launch into a lengthy exposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget strategy. Suffice to say for the purposes of this debate that that strategy requires a steady and sustained reduction in the burden of public expenditure over the next four years.

It is inescapable that the social security programme should make some contribution to those savings, and the provisions requiring legislation are contained in this Bill. The Bill was approved in principle by the House of Commons on 15 April by a majority of 55.

The savings to be achieved by the passage of the Bill will amount to £270 million net in the financial year 1981–82, rising to £480 million net in 1982–83. The Bill is short, and the six main provisions are contained in the first six clauses. They include provision for an abatement of the uprating of certain national insurance benefits which are not, but should be, part of taxable income: for the freezing of the earnings limit for retirement pensioners; for shortening the linking period used for incapacity and unemployment benefits; for reducing and subsequently abolishing the earnings-related supplement; for reducing the unemployment benefit payable to occupational pensioners over 60 with significant occupational pensions; and for reducing the supplementary benefit for the families of strikers.

While it is entirely right and proper for the Opposition to use every means open to them to hold up the Bill, it must be equally proper for the Government to take suitable parliamentary steps to make progress on the Bill so that eventually, if the House so wills, it reaches the statute book.

I anticipate that the Opposition may deploy three arguments in resisting the motion. They may argue that the Government are proceeding with undue haste. They may argue that lengthy debate is essential in view of the nature of

the changes proposed and that debate so far has been responsible and restrained. They may argue that there is no precedent for a guillotine in circumstances such as these—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I hope that the hon. Gentlemen who say "Hear, hear" will listen to the arguments I shall now deploy against those three points.

The Social Security (No. 2) Bill is a Budget Bill in the sense that the proposed changes in the law flow from decisions in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. It is not a Finance Bill and it is not, therefore, subject to the special rules relating to Finance Bills. In particular, it is debatable in another place to which the House has just voted to give another lease of life, and accordingly time has to be allowed for that.

Yet the Bill, affecting as it does the level of the uprating of benefits to take effect next November, has to be law in time to allow the necessary orders to be laid and debated before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

I will explain why that is so. The parallel systems of contributory national insurance benefits and non-contributory supplementary benefits exist alongside one another. Indeed, for people entitled to both kinds of benefit the benefits are often paid together. Despite having to make reductions in the social security programme, the Government are determined to maintain intact the supplementary benefits safety net, and the supplementary allowance is accordingly being fully price-protected.

There will, therefore, be a number of people—we put the estimate at about 30,000—who, because of the abatement of the national insurance benefits provided for in the Bill, will be entitled to supplementary benefit who would not otherwise have received it. In addition, there will be others already entitled to supplementary benefit whose entitlement will be a little higher.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North): Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether those people will be on long-term or short-term supplementary benefit rates?

Mr. Jenkin: If I understand the hon. Gentleman rightly, we are talking about people on the short-term supplementary benefit rate, because that is the


short-term safety net for people on the benefits affected by clauses 1 and 4.

I am sure that I have the whole House with me—

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Paneras, North): The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was required to allow for the necessary uprating. Is he saying that no uprating is already taking place? To my knowledge, books are already being printed with the uprating of 16½ per cent. provided by the Budget and the 11½ per cent., as well as the changes in the Bill. In that case, why is there such a rush for the Bill?

Mr. Jenkin: There has been for many years a convention which has been applied by Governments of both parties that, once a decision has been announced, because of the time factors to which I have referred, the necessary preparatory work takes effect before the statutory authority is finalised. In 1974, the supplementary benefit order books for the 1975 uprating started going out after only the Second Reading of the Bill on 21 November 1974. The Bill did not become law until 13 March 1975. This procedure is perfectly proper. In every year since then the benefit books have started to go out before the uprating order has been passed. Nothing new is happening this time.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that people who are entitled to the benefits should receive their supplementary entitlement by the due date in November.

Mr. David Ennals: Mr. David Ennals (Norwich, North) rose—

Mr. Jenkin: No; I have given way once.
Those who follow these matters will be aware that supplementary benefit books are prepared in local offices.

Mr. Ennals: Mr. Ennals rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to the point that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make.

Mr. Ennals: The Secretary of State cannot read my mind.

Mr. Jenkin: I read the right hon. Gentleman's mind like an open book.
He knows that supplementary benefit books are prepared in local offices, and that the preparation of the new books always starts during the summer. These books, showing the new rates of benefit payable in November, are sent out to beneficiaries week by week as they come round in the rota, and they are sent out during the summer and autumn months. That is the only way in which we can make sure that the benefits are payable at the appropriate rates by the uprating date in November.
That, of course, is the supplementary benefit rate. Because of that abatement of the national insurance benefits, the supplementary benefit rates for which the books need to be prepared are higher than they otherwise would have been. I am sure that it would be the wish of the whole House that we should take these steps in time to allow the higher supplementary benefit payments to be made by the due date.

Mr. Ennals: The Secretary of State thought that he was able to read my mind, but he did not get it right. If he knew that he would have to proceed by this timetable, why did he not introduce this measure earlier, or why did he not include it in the Social Security (No. 1) Bill? Why did he produce it so late and force the House into this intolerable position?

Mr. Jenkin: With great respect, it need not have been an intolerable position. As the right hon. Gentleman recognises, and as many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged for some years, the House should consider expenditure and revenue at the same time. This year, for the first time, the public expenditure White Paper was published with the Budget Statement, and, as a result, these changes became Budget changes, and the Bill is, therefore, a Budget Bill. That is the way in which to deal with the matter.
Even in a normal year, the uprating would require some overtime by staff in the local offices. However, this year the position is complicated by the need to give effect to the first stage of the simplification of supplementary benefit provided for by the Social Security (No. 1) Bill. We also need to ensure that staff in local offices are familiar with the new regulations and instructions which that Bill


makes necessary. These changes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, arose out of reforms proposed in the review report entitled "Social Assistance"—the review that was carried out by our predecessors. All that is bound to put a heavier than normal work load on the staffs of the local offices.
I should like those staffs to know how much the Government appreciate the great efforts that they are making and will make to get the benefits paid at the new rates on time. However, despite those efforts, some people may receive their increases late, although the increases will, of course, be back-dated to 24 November.
I warn the House that it would add materially to the difficulties of those staff if we were not able to adhere to the suggested timetable for the Bill. We may have our differences about the amounts of benefit to be paid, but there can be no difference on the need to make sure that the increases that are to be paid are, so far as is humanly possible, paid to those entitled to them from the dates at which the uprating takes effect.
Any delay in the Bill leaving this House would greatly prejudice that objective. As I said, this Bill, unlike the Finance Bill, is fully debatable in another place, and time must be allowed for that. We consider it essential that the Bill should reach the statute book by mid July, since the uprating order, which requires an affirmative resolution of both Houses, cannot be dealt with until both this Bill and the Social Security (No. 1) Bill have received Royal Assent.
That is the case for making swift progress, and why it has been necessary to compress the debates into a shorter time span than perhaps the Opposition would have wished. This need not have entailed any cut in debating time, and that is why in Committee the Government proposed a fairly tough sittings motion. With sensible use of the time, I have no doubt that all the six main provisions of the Bill could have been properly debated and the Bill reported to the House in accordance with the timetable without need for a guillotine motion.
That brings me to the second argument. My reply to it, to put it bluntly, is that the Opposition have not chosen to debate the Bill responsibly. Instead they have

engaged in lengthy, time-wasting filibustering in order to delay progress. The hon. Member for St. Paneras, North (Mr. Stallard) was perfectly honest about that when he referred to it as "stupid all-night charades". He was right.
Let me tell the House what has been happening in Committee. We started with a five-hour discussion—two morning sittings—simply on the constitutional propriety of sitting on three afternoons a week. During that debate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke for no less than one and a half hours—

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne (Knutsford): Longer.

Mr. Jenkin: It certainly seemed much longer. But that excludes all the helpful interventions from his hon. Friends. The debate was punctuated by interminable points of order, and even after the stittings motion had been passed the first 40 minutes of the third sitting were spent discussing further points of order. In ail, 42 points of order were raised, many of which were elaborated by Opposition Members. Also, many Labour Members made long speeches. Happily, only the hon. Member for Perry Barr managed to exceed 45 minutes, and he did so on no fewer than three occasions.
As the House knows, it is difficult to make long speeches on narrow amendments and to remain in order. Of course, the Opposition frequently failed to do that. I have only made a note of those occasions—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a custom of the House that if a right hon. or hon. Member criticises the Chair, either in the House or in Committee, a motion must be put on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I have not heard the Secretary of State criticise the Chair.

Mr. Jenkin: I am not surprised at the sensitivity of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), because in my next sentence I proposed to refer to the number of times that Labour Members, in the course of their lengthy speeches, had to be called to order by the Chair. I have made a note only of those occasions when they had to be called to order


twice or more during their speeches. Virtually every Labour Member of the Committee, with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis), who spoke but once, and then briefly and to the point, had to be called to order by the Chair. I see the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) laughing at his hon. Friend's discomfiture. I apologise if I embarrass him. The hon. Member for Blackley, in a prolonged speech during the third sitting of the Committee, had to be called to order by the Chair on no fewer than eight occasions. These prolonged speeches—remaining in order only with the greatest difficulty—characterised the 44 hours that we have spent in Committee.

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr): That is because the right hon. Gentleman has no answers.

Mr. Jenkin: What have we achieved? We have got through just 11 groups of amendments and we have still some way to go to finish clause 1. By no stretch of the imagination could this be called reasonable progress. These facts alone fully justify the motion.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West may ask for precedents. There are numerous precedents. It hardly lies in the mouth of the Opposition, let alone the Shadow Leader of the House, to demand precedents when the previous Labour Government introduced five guillotine motions on five Bills in one day. If the Opposition want a precedent that is close to the motion, I call their attention to the Selective Employment Payments Bill 1966.

Mr. Ennals: What about a DHSS Bill?

Mr. Jenkin: The Selective Employment Payments Bill arose out of the 1966 Budget. It was guillotined by the then Labour Government before one word had been spoken in Committee. They did not give the Committee a chance to make progress. That Government did not allow the Committee even to begin to consider the Bill before they tabled a guillotine motion. On this occasion, by providing for extended sittings from the outset, we gave the Committee every possible opportunity to debate the Bill without the need for this motion. The

facts that I have given the House make it clear that a guillotine motion is now unavoidable.
If the motion is approved by the House, it will provide that the Bill must be reported by 11 pm on Monday 12 May. That will allow us to consider the Bill for at least another 26 hours. That will mean that the Bill will have been considered for about 70 hours overall. Had the Opposition chosen to use the time wisely, there would have been about 10 hours' debate on each of the six main proposals in the Bill. As it is, there will still be ample time for sensible debate.
Given the need to have the Bill on the statute book by the middle of July, and given the use that the Opposition have chosen to make of the time so far, the case for the motion is unanswerable. I ask the House to approve it.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West): There is no point in debating the motion in detail. The Government are determined to press the Bill through the House. They have taken unprecedented steps to do so. They introduced a motion that forced the Committee to sit three days a week. That did not allow us to examine the Bill in detail. In effect, the Government did not allow us to see the Hansard report of the previous day's sitting. I make no apology to the House for saying that the Opposition would not facilitate the Bill's passage through the House.

Mr. Jenkin: I intervene in fairness to the staff of Hansard, who have performed miracles. We have never had to meet in Committee without the Hansard report of the entire proceedings being available for our next sitting. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put on record his praise of those who made that possible.

Mr. Orme: It is no fault of the Hansard reporters that Hansard reports were not available. We had to interpret—I think that that is the right word—manuscript amendments to rough drafts which had been sent to the printers which for industrial reasons the printers have not been printing regularly.
We told the Government that time should be allowed and it was not. The Government introduced the Bill while the


No. 1 Bill was in another place. They gave no indication that such measures were to be introduced. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Bill's passage is being dictated not by his Department but by the Treasury.
The Bill is unique. It abolishes certain social security benefits. I shall explain why the Opposition are not prepared to facilitate the Bill's progress and why we were correct to debate clause 1 in Committee at some length.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of my hon. Friends straying out of order. Several of my hon. Friends spoke for considerable periods without being out of order. I spoke about the important issue of industrial industry benefit, which will be cut if the Bill is inaccurate. Little is known about that outside the House. How many times was I brought to order when I was speaking during the all-night sitting? We believe that the Bill challenges the basis of the Welfare State.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has challenged me. I draw his attention to pages 92 and 97 of the Hansard report of the Committee's third sitting. The right hon. Gentleman was called to order twice by the Chair.

Mr. Orme: That happened twice in a speech that lasted one hour and 20 minutes. The Chair was correct in the attitude that it took. The right hon. Gentleman is making an indirect criticism of the Chair.

Mr. Jenkin: Mr. Jenkin indicated dissent.

Mr. Orme: I shall deal with some of the major clauses in the Bill. We are concerned not only with clause 6 and the removal of benefits from strikers' families; the Bill goes much deeper and wider than that. Clause 1 provides for the de-indexation of short-term benefits. In effect, the message contained in clause 1 is to say goodbye to the national insurance principle. It starts to break down a principle that has been established for over 30 years. National insurance benefits are paid to the sick, the unemployed, widows and pregnant women. About £2,800 million will be paid this year in benefits through the national insurance principle. However, there are proposals in the Bill that will lead to 50 per cent. net savings in payments of those benefits by 1982. That will be achieved by the removal of the

national insurance principle in a number of areas.
The Bill will introduce a 5 per cent. reduction in real terms in unemployment benefit. The inflation rate that is forecast from November 1979 to November 1980 is 16½ per cent. Who believes that 16½ per cent. will be the inflation rate? In Committee the right hon. Gentleman began to cast doubt on the accuracy of the forecast and to make ready his excuses when that percentage is exceeded. If inflation is not held at that level, the gap between inflation and payments to the unemployed, the sick and the industrially injured will become wider. The Bill proposes a reduction in benefits in real terms, an event that has not taken place for over 50 years, since 1931. If a benefit does not meet the rate of inflation, it implies a cut in real terms.
The Government are using this Bill to make scapegoats of the unemployed. Not only will there be a 5 per cent. cut in sick benefit, but the Government have virtually turned the Green Paper into a White Paper. In future, an employer will have to pay the first eight weeks of sickness benefit. That represents another major breach of the national insurance principle. Many people consider it absolutely outrageous.
I remember the Secretary of State talking about the national insurance principle. We do not hear much about that now. Who would have thought that invalidity benefit would not be uprated in line with inflation? Of course, it will not be uprated in line with inflation. The reaction of the lobby representing the disabled has shaken even the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Never. He is made of stone.

Mr. Orme: In Committee, the Secretary of State refused to meet that lobby. He said that he would meet them only after the Committee stage. When pressure mounted, he stated that, if economic circumstances were satisfactory in 1982, he would consider raising the invalidity benefit to the amount that it should have been. However, the disabled will have lost two years of benefit.
The facts should go on record. Currently, 600,000 people are in receipt of invalidity benefit. In 1978, 32,000 men


over the age of 65 years deferred retirement and claimed invalidity benefit. In addition, 4,150 women over the age of 60 deferred retirement and claimed invalidity benefit. There were 157,000 men aged between 60 and 64 on invalidity benefit. Of women aged between 55 and 59, 28,000 were on invalidity benefit. Those aged between 60 and 64 represent the largest group of invalidity claimants. Some way behind, the next highest group is that of men aged between 55 and 59. In that group, 90,000 have claimed invalidity pension. Therefore, about 600,000 people will not get the uprating to which they are entitled. They will suffer a cut.
It was often mentioned in Committee that letters had been sent to Members of Parliament. In Committee, I read out letters from people on invalidity benefit. They are seriously ill. Many of them are ex-Service people who served this country for many years. They often served throughout the Second World War. They are absolutely staggered that the Government have not seen fit to increase invalidity benefits in line with inflation.

Mr. Ennals: I agree with my right hon. Friend's point. However, does he not agree that the vast majority of people on invalidity benefits and of others who will suffer have not realised what the Government intend to do to them?

Mr. Orme: My right hon Friends should take note that the provisions concerning invalidity benefits and the 54-week period are now becoming more widely known. The 54-week period means that the Government will cheat beneficiaries out of two weeks' benefit this year.
I received a letter from a gentleman in Eastbourne, Sussex. I referred to it in Committee. He wrote:
Like many others now severely disabled and elderly Ex-service personnel, I served in the Royal Air Force from 1939–1945 in defence of this country. It now seems that the best years of my life... given willingly and voluntarily, mean little in terms of fair treatment in adversity. Condemned to virtual immobility and constant pain for life, plus all the attendant problems and frustrations of such a situation—and through no fault of one's own—now to be penalised and discriminated against financially as well, makes a mockery of one's patriotism.

That is one of many letters that I have received.
When I referred to another benefit, the Secretary of State said that I had been called to order twice in Committee. However, I spoke for over one hour. How many people realise that industrial injury benefit will be treated in the same way? It will be cut. It is a unique benefit and is unrelated to any other benefit. It is a national insurance benefit to which people have a right. Last year, 632,016 people claimed industrial injury benefit.
Despite improved conditions in offices, factories and mines, industrial injuries unfortunately occur. Indeed, they will continue to occur as technology increases and, with it, the speed of life. People are dependent on that benefit. Many people who are injured never return to their job on a full-time basis. Therefore, industrial injury benefits serve as a cushion. One can contrast the Tory Government's treatment of the sick, the unemployed, the disabled and the injured with their attitude to people such as Mr. Ian Mac-Gregor. Let us contrast those benefits, with the fact that about £2 million will be paid out in one form or another to one person for running a nationalised industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. While the thought of order is in his mind, may I ask him to relate his remarks to the motion? Will he explain why he thinks he needs more time? This is not a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Orme: With respect, I am discussing that. We spent 40 hours in Committee on such issues. Every one of those issues is contained in clause 1. We were justified in spending that amount of time on them. My hon. Friends and I had wished to bring up many other issues. I respectfully suggest that I am using the time to prove that the guillotine has been brought in prematurely. It is not justified. We have a right to discuss many other issues. I am talking about the rights and benefits of millions of working people. Indeed, 22 million insured people will be affected by any change in the national insurance principle.

Clause 2 contains a freezing of the earnings limit of £52 for retirement pensions. The Government have not allowed the increase to £60·50 to take place. I


do not know what the Under-Secretary thinks about that I had thought that we had reached a general agreement that the amount would be uprated in line with inflation. However, the Government have seen fit to stop any uprating. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) gave a parliamentary answer in February to the effect that the Government were going ahead with the uprating. The Treasury has stepped in. Such a move is mean and despicable.

Clause 3 is a small but complicated clause dealing with the linkage of those qualified for invalidity and unemployment benefit. I have received a letter today which I expect the Secretary of State also received about those suffering from mental problems. Under the pressures of modern society, those people often need short periods off work. Clause 3 will prevent them from qualifying for invalidity benefit in the longer term, which is another petty move that does not save much public money. For the Government there are no exceptions. They are going right round the wicket. Those who suffer from schizophrenia and other mental problems will be penalised. They are a small but important group of people.

Clause 4 will phase out earnings-related benefit. That is without precedent. It is not often realised that that benefit is not only payable in addition to flat-rate unemployment benefit but covers sickness benefit, industrial injuries benefit, maternity allowance and widow's allowance for up to six months. To give some examples, on £50 a week the earnings-related benefit is £7·50, on £75 it is £11·35 and on £100 it is £15·25.

The Government are abolishing ERS without consultation. They are therefore undermining and destroying confidence in the national insurance scheme. When they paid their contributions, people expected that benefit to be available. The national insurance scheme operates on the principle that benefit entitlement in the relevant circumstances, such as sickness or unemployment, depends on an appropriate contribution record. Conversely, people expect to receive the benefits when they have paid their contributions. In fact, entitlement to that benefit depends on a contribution record in the previous income tax year, but that is merely a technical consideration for the general public. They are obliged to pay national in-

surance contributions when they work, and they expect to receive benefits when ill or unemployed. Millions of working people have paid contributions since ERS was introduced in 1966 at rates set by the Government, expecting that the normal range of benefits—flat rate and ERS—will be payable in their time of need.

The TUC says that abolition of ERS will mean that all short-term claimants will receive only flat-rate benefits. That includes middle and higher paid workers who previously received higher rates of ERS than those with lower earnings. What would the Conservative Party say if private insurance companies such as the Prudential started to break their contracts in that way? The Government are breaching a principle that has been accepted in this House.

Mr. Matthew Parris: My question is simple. The right hon. Gentleman is discussing clause 4 and will presumably move on to discuss other clauses. Does he agree that if the guillotine motion is passed we shall have a better chance of discussing those clauses in Committee?

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman has not intervened during the 44 hours in Committee. That was his first intervention, and it was not very useful.
The Government are reneging on a commitment with regard to ERS which has been accepted by both parties for a number of years. I challenge the Secretary of State to show me the Government's proposal to cut this benefit or any other in the Conservative Party manifesto. That was not spelt out to the electorate. The right hon. Gentleman does not have a mandate for that policy.

Mr. Allen McKay: The earnings-related supplement is part of the mineworkers' pension and redundancy schemes, and who will fund that part in future? I have asked that question on numerous occasions. I have been told by the Under-Secretary of State that the calculations are complex and will take time. That statement surely invalidates the guillotine motion.

Mr. Orme: I say to my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. McKay), Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis) and


Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who are all involved in the matter, that mineworkers will suffer considerably as a result of the Bill. There is no commitment by the Government to make good any cuts. We were not aware of this problem originally; it arose only in Committee. We need some answers from the Government.

Mr. Skinner: I can speak for the miners more than perhaps other groups, although almost everyone will be affected by the Bill, including people with occupational pension schemes and earnings-related benefits. The total effect of the Bill will be that the National Coal Board will lose over £50 million. The miners, who are the wealth creators in the pits, will suffer when their next wage claim goes in. That is one reason why on 14 May many miners will take part in the day of action to show what a lousy lot this Government are.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend. His comments are not unconnected with clause 5, and we know the Secretary of State's attitude there.
Consultation should have taken place if the Secretary of State wanted a change of policy because of new circumstances, especially one which affected the National Union of Mineworkers and miners' retirement benefits, but there has been no consultation on any aspect of the Bill. A day or two before it was presented there were some leaks, but we had no idea what the Bill comprised.

Clause 6 makes proposals with regard to trade unionists and their families. No savings will result. To put it bluntly, it is purely an attack on the trade union movement. Families of strikers who are in difficulty will be denied the right to benefits that have existed for a number of years. Those benefits have helped our industrial society and made changes possible; they have helped to moderate industrial strife. The Government are moving in the opposite direction, and the result will be a great deal of bitterness. They may achieve a short-term political advantage, but it will be strikers and their families who will suffer. That part of the Bill should be rejected without hesitation.

To sum up, what does the Bill involve? We must carry the message it contains to

the millions of men and women in the country. The Bill breaks the national insurance principle.

The Government have forecast inflation at 16½ per cent. for these purposes. Even if it is only 16½ per cent., which I do not believe, millions of people will be 5 per cent. worse off. If it is above 16½ per cent. the position will be much more serious. There is no guarantee of the Government making good any shortfall, so the question of inflation is crucial. About 110,000 people will be moved from national insurance on to supplementary benefits and the means test. That is a simplification of the Government's proposals.

I have here a report of a survey that was carried out recently in Strathclyde. It was drawn up by officials from the social work department in Scotland's largest local authority. It reveals that in that area alone those on benefit stand to lose a total of £40 million next year, and the total annual loss of benefit is expected to rise steadily to £100 million in 1983–84—the last year of the Government's current economic policies. That £40 million will be lost in one of the poorer areas of the United Kingdom. What effect will that have on society? What effect will it have on young people who cannot get jobs? What about those people who are on benefit and struggling? Their benefits will be reduced in real terms. What does this mean in terms of law and order and the problems that will be created? These are questions that the Government must answer.

I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not only to vote against the motion tonight, but to campaign outside on this matter. Between now and 14 May, my right hon. and hon. Friends should tell trade unionists that if they want reasons to oppose the Government and demonstrate that opposition on 14 May with all possible industrial power they can take this Bill as a major one. The Bill removes basic rights for which we fought for a generation and which we will not lightly give up.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I rise to support the timetable motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He moved it in a courteous and helpful manner, which was


in such marked contrast to the interventions from the Labour Benches. Throughout the consideration of this Bill in Committee the Government Front Bench spokesmen have deserved a word of praise because they maintained their courtesy despite the violent language that was used against them. In fact, that language was so violent at times that most people would have been stung to reply in kind. Fortunately my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, did not reply in kind.
The reasons why this timetable motion should be supported are many. First, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that there is a need to pass this motion to ensure that discussions in Committee take place on a reasonable basis with due regard to the division of time and the total time taken.
I would have thought that a relatively short Bill such as this, because it has a clear distinction of principle, could have been debated in Committee in a reasonable and rational manner with due regard to the need to bring the discussions to an end, not for the benefit of hon. Members but for the benefit of those who are to receive the payments we are discussing. [HON. MEMBERS:
"Not payments, cuts".]
From the beginning it was obvious that there was no likelihood of rational discussion. It was apparent from the moment the Committee began its first meeting that the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and his colleagues had no intention of initiating a debate on the substance of the Bill as it was submitted to the Committee.
It has been suggested that to draw attention to the length of speeches that Labour Members made in Committee might have been in some way a criticism of the Chair. I am sure that both the Chairmen who presided over our debates deserve our thanks, particularly the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) who presided at the first sitting. In fact, he deserves an apology from the Opposition. Three Opposition Members were on their feet yelling and shouting at the top of their voices while the Chairman tried to conduct a Division.

Mr. Reg Race: If the hon. Member is really concerned about the quality of debate in Committee and

the extent to which we are debating the principles of the Bill, will he tell the House the number of contributions that he has made to the Committee debates about these principles?

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Modesty forbade me from listing my own contributions, but as he has asked me about them I shall tell the House. I made three contributions to the Committee discussions. The first was in response to a direct question from an Opposition Member who asked whether those supporting the Government were volunteers who really supported the Bill in principle. I replied that that was so. Secondly, when the right hon. Member for Salford, West was getting into a mess over industrial injury benefits, I asked him, in my normal helpful manner, whether he thought that stress-related illnesses should be included in his points. He said that they should, but he forgot that the teachers, to whom I drew attention in my third contribution, who had breakdown pensions resulting from stress-related illnesses, are paying tax on those pensions whereas those on the benefits to which he referred do not pay tax on those benefits. The 5 per cent. abatement that my right hon. Friend is proposing is one step towards equality of treatment between those suffering from physical difficulty and those suffering from mental disability. Those were my three contributions to the debate, and they were all directly to the point under discussion at the time. Had all hon. Members confined themselves to such straightforward statements we would not have had to use three hours out of the time of the House today discussing this motion.
On the Opposition side there appears to be a view that it is necessary to use violent language to indicate sincerity of purpose. I accept without question that every Opposition Member on the Committee feels strongly about the Bill. So do I, and so do my constituents. I have discussed this Bill with many of my constituents and a large number have said that it is something for which they have been waiting for a long time. They include widows whose pensions are taxed and retirement pensioners whose pensions are taxed. They have often drawn my attention to the unfairness of benefits on which other people live not being taxed.


They regard this as a step in the right direction.
I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Salford, West in detailing each clause of the Bill. I do not believe that this is necessarily appropriate now. When the time comes to resume discussions in Committee on a reasonable timetable, I shall enjoy debating some of these points with Opposition Members.
Another reason for passing a timetable motion to limit discussion is the inordinate length, not only of speeches, but of interventions by Opposition Members. I would not presume to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he said that only one hon. Member on the Opposition Benches had spoken for more than 45 minutes. I noted carefully, however, that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. East-ham), on the third sitting, started speaking at 9.45 pm and did not complete his speech until 10.45 pm. I accept that he may not have spoken for more than three-quarters of an hour and that the rest of the time was taken up by lengthy and largely unnecessary interventions by his hon. Friends.
There were contributions by other hon. Members that I am sure the House would not wish me to list at length. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) listed the trade unions affiliated to the TUC with which he had had consultations. It would have been sufficient for the hon. Gentleman to say that he had spoken to 44 trade unions. Instead, he read out each one and explained its affiliations and origins.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) drew attention to matters of which the Committee was already fully aware. These included the fact that the hon. Gentleman is unenthusiastic about naval shipbuilding. That was interesting but not particularly relevant. The hon. Gentleman said that he would have liked to see a cutback, or ending, of a missile contract that would lead to hundreds being unemployed in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman also referred, in terms that I think most hon. Members of the Committee regretted, to the Royal Family. Such interventions make a timetable motion essential. Opposition Members will know that the length of time on

each amendment and each clause will be limited and will thus stick to the point.
There is tacit agreement on both sides of the House that a timetable motion is necessary—[HON. MEMBERS: Rubbish.] Despite what Opposition Members say, there is evidence that, from the beginning, they were unable to sustain the pace that they had set themselves. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have every right to be amused. If, however, they were so keen to battle against the sittings motion and felt that it must be resisted at every step, why did only nine of the 11 Opposition Members on the Committee vote against a sittings motion? That does not suggest to me a burning desire to fight at every stage. The fact is that, from the beginning, Opposition Members were not filled with enthusiasm. Early in the proceedings, the hon. Member for St. Paneras, North (Mr. Stallard) said:
I am a little befuddled".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 April 1980; col. 7.]
How right the hon. Gentleman was!

Mr. Stallard: We are all getting a little befuddled now. The hon. Gentleman has now spoken 10 times longer on the guillotine motion that he did on the guts of the Bill. Everyone has a right to be befuddled by the stupidity coming from the Government side of the Chamber.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman did not deny that he used the phrase:
 I am a little befuddled.
The second aspect of the question—

Mr. Alan Clark: My hon. Friend might point out that the attendance on the Opposition side was notable by its diminution during the hours of night—

Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman was asleep.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Clark: I was intending to draw the attention of the House to the fact that one of the Opposition Members of the Committee is a director of the Playboy Club. We assume that his absence during the hours of darkness was related to his looking after his interests in that sphere.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth,


Sutton (Mr. Clark) did not steal the thunder of my last remark about attendance and the efforts of Opposition Members in their determined opposition to the Bill. We were discussing last Thursday an amendment that had been described, once from the Opposition Front Bench and once from the Opposition Back Benches, as " crucial ". Amendment No. 63, if anyone is uncertain to which amendment I refer, was said to be crucial and had to be fought. In the voting on this crucial amendment, the Government had 13 votes representing the full total of their membership. The Opposition had eight votes. This meant that eight Opposition Members had bothered to stay. If any hon. Member refers again to that amendment as crucial, I shall continue to point out that certain hon. Members were not present to cast their votes. I imagine that they were worried about the council elections.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr let the cat out of the bag when he said that the Opposition were not prepared to be reasonable. If Opposition Members are not prepared to be reasonable, a timetable motion, unfortunately, becomes necessary. The appalling behaviour of Opposition Members with whom I had to sit for 44 hours means that it is, unfortunately, necessary to limit discussion by the Committee. I, therefore, wish to support my right hon. Friend in pressing that the timetable motion be accepted by the House.

Mr. David Ennals: I feel no need to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) who has made virtually no contribution to the Committee. The Government Whips must have had quite a job getting people to support the disgraceful motion we are debating. Hon. Members were forced to meet in Committee for three days a week and at night. Now the Government introduce a timetable motion when a Bill is only in its second week. This brings derision on the House. The public will think nothing of a Government who decide they will conduct business, affecting millions of our population, in such a disrespectful fashion.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: Mrs. Peggy Fenner (Rochester and Chatham) rose—

Mr. Ennals: I am certain that the hon. Lady will wish to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye later. I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and my hon. Friends on their work in Committee. The motion that we are debating is unprecedented. The Bill is the first since 1930 that sets out deliberately to reduce national insurance entitlement. When my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) put this point to the Leader of the House on Thursday, the Leader of the House said:
 benefits will be increased. It is the rate of increase that is reduced ".—[Official Report, I May 1980; Vol. 983, c. 1623.]
That was unworthy of the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when the inflation rate is running at over 20 per cent., when the Prime Minister has said that it will go higher, and when the Secretary of State and the Government must know that there will not be a 16½ per cent. inflation rate in November, an increase that is 5 per cent.—or that may turn out to be 8 per cent.—behind the inflation rate, represents a cut. This is the first time that such a Bill has been introduced into Parliament in the lifetime of almost any hon. Member.
What are the Government's reasons? If they had decided on such Draconian measures why did not they announce them earlier? If the Secretary of State is saying that they were forced upon him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer after he had announced other cuts in the first Social Security Bill, that is disgraceful. The Bill combines insult with injury. Conservative Members do not seem to be worried about the injury. Brick by brick the Government are undermining some of the basic principles on which our Welfare State is based.
Let us examine the injuries. The Government are trying to control industrial unrest by hitting at the wives and children of people involved in legal strike action. They are hitting invalidity pensioners, the chronic sick, the disabled and people with industrial injuries. I bet that none of them were queueing up, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North described, to express their support for the Bill. The Government are cutting unemployment benefit when unemployment


is rising steadily, mainly because of Government action. The Government have decided to create a new 54-week year—a direct form of fraud. They are taking away two weeks' benefit from the range of benefits. There is plenty of injury to the public about which the Tory Party seems unconcerned.
It is a harsh, cruel and heartless Bill which seeks to make the sick and the unemployed pay for the tax reliefs of the rich. The Labour Government sought to ease the plight of the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed. When I look back at their record I am made angry beyond measure at what my successor is doing.

Mrs. Fenner: When the right hon. Gentleman made great play of such a motion being unprecedented was he saying that it is unprecedented to sit three days a week in a Committee on a Bill? I seem to have spent many weeks doing just that. Who introduced pensions for the over-eighties and paid a bonus to the pensioners every year? We do not need to be educated by the Labour Party on caring for the elderly.

Mr. Ennals: I was involved in the Crossman Bill. Except for the measure for the over-eighties, in the last 30 years I doubt whether there is a major social security reform for which the Conservative Party is responsible. Never once in the five-and-a-half years that we were in power did we seek to curtail discussion on the many Bills which the DHSS introduced. Can the Secretary of State give an example of a DHSS Bill being curtailed? He cannot, because there are no examples.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—

Mr. Ennals: I shall give way in a moment. The measures that we introduced were beneficial, whereas the measures being introduced by the right hon. Gentleman do damage to the people who can least bear it.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman obviously is suffering from a lapse of memory. I referred to the last Labour Government introducing five guillotines on five Bills in one day. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in the debate on the Health Services Bill which was his Bill subject to the guillotine.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Ennals: I shall not withdraw. Anybody who was in the House at that time will recall that, because of the balance in the Committee and because the Committee itself refused to give adequate time, we had to come before the House, not to curtail time, but to spend longer on the Bill. Eventually we considered the Bill in less time than was agreed on the Floor of the House. During the whole of the five-and-a-half years of Labour Government it was not necessary to curtail debate on a DHSS Bill.
There is plenty of injury to the millions who are affected by the Bill. The insult is that elected Members of Parliament are being gagged in their arguments against measures which are being introduced to dismantle, brick by brick, the Welfare State which we created. The Government have no mandate for the measures. Thursday's election results were only a foretaste of public anger at the Government's handling of the issue. There will be mounting anger as we explain to the sick, the unemployed and the invalids the effects of the Government's action. There will be mounting fury at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is fulfilling his responsibilities.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: In supporting the motion, I concur with the view expressed from both sides of the House that we are discussing an unusual Bill which deserves constructive debate. My complaint is that we have lacked constructive debate in Committee so far. That is why, reluctantly, my right hon. Friend has introduced a timetable motion.
It is a fallacy to believe that anybody who receives a benefit from the State is poor by virtue of receiving that benefit. The supplementary benefits system is designed to look after the poor. I am delighted that in the Budget package the supplementary benefits system was preserved. That takes some of the heat out of the arguments expressed by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals).
The debate must take place in the context of the general economic position. I have some anxieties about the terms of the Bill. First, I am worried about the abolition of the compulsory uprating


of the invalidity benefit. I was pleased when my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that invalidity benefits would return to the level of ordinary pensions when economic circumstances permitted.
Secondly, I am worried about the reduction and abolition of the earnings-related supplement and the addition. I know that my right hon. Friend will explain his proposals for dealing with how contributions are to be adjusted. Even after so many hours of discussion, we have not yet debated that issue. I should also like to discuss the abatement of unemployment benefit on account of payments of occupational pensions for the over-sixties. I have no doubt that all of us will wish to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about that.
We started in Committee wishing to hear the issues discussed and recognising that most of the criticism would come from the Opposition. We hoped for short, and to the point, contributions. What did we get? The proceedings began with a barrage of points of order. One of the principal points of order—discussed for hours—was the inability of Opposition Members to read Hansard in the form in which it was then being produced. The Official Report was being produced in rough but readable type, though I agree that some of the pages were upside down. Some of the speeches that were made read much better upside down.
There followed a lengthy discussion about whether the tea ladies—who do important and useful work during the night sittings—had been informed of the time of the sittings. Bearing in mind that we spent five hours discussing the sittings motion, it is not surprising that my hon. Friends felt that our ability to discuss the issues were severely limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) picked up the leading quotation from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who told us in Committee that he had seen the film " Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid " no fewer than 12 times and giving us his " one-two ", he said that the Opposition were not prepared to be reasonable.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) told hon. Members to " Keep on chatting." I wrote down his words. That is how the first two full

sittings of the Committee stage were conducted. I was shocked by the conduct of the hon. Member for Fife, Central during the taking of the vote at the end of those two sittings. Looking at some of the grey faces on the Opposition Front Bench I know that the hon. Member's conduct was not supported by them.
I pay tribute to the two chairmen of the Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who maintained an unbelievable calm in the face of this appalling demonstration, which did no good to parliamentary democracy.
You may ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker—since you came to some of our deliberations—why we are still on page 2 and clause 1. I pay tribute to the considerable eloquence of Labour Members. I made a note of some of the more important basic topics which we discussed. You may or may not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider them central to the subject of social security but I hope that the beneficiaries, and potential beneficiaries, who are concerned about this Bill will take note of the important topics we discussed. There was a major attack on barristers and farmers. I had to make it clear in the face of this gunfire that I was neither but that I was almost as bad. However, that did not seem to me to be particularly central to the discussion.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was unwise enough to quote a comment by an American about the social security system in this country. That was an excuse for a general debate on the entire welfare system of the United States. We then moved—I am not a member of that particular establishment—to Brooks's club, which received a severe pasting.
Such is the ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen that we heard of a boy's public school at Rottingdean. All my researches indicate that the school does not exist. It seemed to have been invented specifically for the purposes of our debate.
We listened to a detailed discussion on defence expenditure, about which one or two Opposition Members felt passionately. That particular topic came up no fewer than four times during Committee. We heard a detailed price list of the weaponry available. None of us having enough spare cash, we were, unfortunately, not able to afford a Tornado,


which we were assured was cheap at £10 million. Nor could we afford helicopters, which we were assured were—

Mr. Rooker: They were ten-a-penny.

Mr. Baker: Quite right. We were told they were ten-a-penny at only £1·5 million each. We also hear of a nuclear submarine at £140 million. These debates—and a long debate about the use of the word " housewife "—were conducted among Opposition Members. They did not seem to me to be relevant or helpful in advancing the discussion of this important Bill.
I suspect—it may be because I am somewhat suspicious or became suspicious—that Labour Members did not want to reach a discussion on clause 6 because they knew that that was the clause dealing with the withdrawal of supplementary benefit to strikers and their families. That issue was fully discussed at the general election when people throughout the country had the opportunity to vote on it. It is a clause that we should discuss in detail.
At this rate an eight-clause Bill would not be finished before the end of this year. This is an important and controversial Bill and I believe that we need this timetable motion so that the Bill can be properly and evenly discussed clause by clause. That is why I support the motion.

Mr. David Stoddart: I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I feel it necessary to attempt to take part in this debate because I find it absolutely incredible that the Government should seek to bring forward a guillotine motion on a Bill which went into Standing Committee only a week ago. That fact is so incredible as to be almost frightening and for that reason I felt impelled to say a few words today.
The duty of the Opposition is to oppose measures with which they do not agree—measures which they believe will bring harm to the people of this country. In my view the Government's action in bringing forward the guillotine motion for this Bill—after trying trickery over the timetable for sittings in Committee—seeks to undermine the rights, the duties, and the privileges of Her Majesty's Opposition in this House. We should be worried

about that because the Government have shown a disturbing predilection—when they cannot get their own way—for bringing forward guillotine motions. They know that such motions will be carried because of the craven acceptance of the Government view by Conservative Back Benchers.
The Opposition have rights, privileges and duties. I believe, therefore, that it is right and proper that the Opposition should, today, seek to resist the Government guillotine on this important Bill. I have been in this House almost 10 years and one of the first Bills on which I served dealt with housing finance legislation. That Bill, similarly, sought radically to alter the principles which had, hitherto, been accepted an on all-party basis.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was in charge of that Bill. He is not known as a " wet " by his right hon. and hon. Friends but he is known as a Right-winger by the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman did not bring forward a guillotine motion on that Bill within a week, two weeks, one month or three months. He was prepared to allow the Committee to discuss the Bill for five months before he brought forward a timetable motion. During those five months the Committee not only met all day but all night as well and it sat, practically, every day of the week.
At that time we had a Government who were mindful of the privileges, duties and rights of the Opposition. It now seems that we have a Government who have no measure and no consideration of those rights. I believe that the Government are entirely wrong and misguided—and will be shown to be misguided—in bringing forward this guillotine motion in so short a time.
I can only presume, since the Government are trying to limit discussion, that they are concerned that too long a discussion will alert the people of this country to just what the Bill means. As many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, it involves a fundamental alteration in the insurance principle and the whole basis of our social services. It marks a departure from the arrangement whereby we had virtual all-party agreement not to undermine those two principles. Therefore, I believe that the Government are concerned and


worried to restrict and even stop discussion on this important Bill.
We have already heard that important benefits will be either reduced or entirely removed from people who have hitherto enjoyed them. We have also heard—and we must all agree because we know it—that these benefits have been based on the insurance principle that one pays for and gets the benefit that one expected to get. People who have been paying their insurance premiums over a long period in the expectation of getting wage-related benefits now find them willy-nilly removed from them. They are, in fact, being cheated, because they are not now to receive a benefit for which they have been paying and had expected to receive. If the Prudential, the Pearl or any other insurance company did that to its policy holders, all hell would be let loose in the House. Not only Opposition Members, but Government supporters would rightly be protesting at the cheating of the public.
What is more, we hear about the 5 per cent. reduction in unemployment, invalidity, maternity and injury benefits and so on. I was given to understand by the Chancellor, and on Second Reading of this Bill, that that 5 per cent. was to compensate for tax which the Government would have liked to raise this year from these recipients of benefits. But this is a new principle. Many of the people who will have their benefits reduced would not be paying income tax. Therefore, by this reduction of 5 per cent., the Government are levying a tax on people who are not liable to pay tax. That is a shocking betrayal of the poorest people in the land who are affected by this Bill.

Mr. Alan Clark: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman—and who can blame him?—has not read the full text of the Official Report of our proceedings upstairs. But as he has raised the question of principle—which I agree is fundamental—perhaps he would turn his attention to the amendment moved and spoken to by his hon. Friends the Members for Wood Green (Mr. Race) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), which asked that the principle of a reduction of 1 per cent., rather than 5 per cent., should be accepted by the Committee. They accepted the principle and argued for it.

Mr. Stoddart: I very much doubt whether my right hon. and hon. Friends would accept such a principle.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If my hon. Friend were to consult the record he would see that all hon. Members who spoke to that amendment made it absolutely clear that they were fundamentally opposed to the principle. The difficulty for hon. Members is whether to vote against something or to seek to modify the worst effects of it. In tabling that amendment we were merely seeking to try to persuade the Government to see a bit of reason in their unreasonable proposals.

Mr. Stoddart: My right hon. and hon. Friends need have no fear. I knew precisely that that was what they were intending to do. I also understand that that modest amendment was thrown out by the Government because they were not prepared to move in any sense at all.
In the Bill and in many other respects the Government, by sleight of hand, are cheating a number of people out of benefits which they should have. For example, one would have thought that the old-age pensioners would have been left alone. But even they will find, not only that the uprating which comes into operation in November will fail to meet the rise in the cost of living, but that the Government have introduced a new calendar—a 54-week year. The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) mentioned Christmas bonuses. The Government are making the pensioners pay for practically the whole of their Christmas bonus. If that is not a disgraceful move, I do not know what is.
Finally, the Government and many of their supporters are opposed to the TUC's day of action on 14 May. But, by Heaven, if there is one reason for a day of action on 14 May, this Bill is that reason, because every employed man and woman will be adversely affected by it. The Government cannot expect trade unions, trade union leaders or trade unionists to sit idly by while the Bill is rushed and forced through the House of Commons. I for one shall take the greatest pleasure in voting against the guillotine motion tonight.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: Having been in the Lobby in which my Government were not situated last week, I do not take kindly to having it alleged against me by the hon.


Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) that I cravenly accept what the Government are doing. Perhaps he will grant me that, as a past Labour Leader once said, every dog can have one little bark, which I had.
I rise to support the motion moved by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that hon. Members who are fair will admit that I spent most of the day and night listening most carefully to what they said for 44 hours. Before the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asks " How many times did you contribute? ", let me say that I did not Nothing would have induced me to deny Opposition Members the maximum time to debate these items, about which I recognise they feel so strongly.
On many occasions when my right hon. Friend answered points made by Opposition Members throughout the day and night I made a note especially that he said that he was responding to their many points of substance. Therefore, I do not deny that hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), who has sat there throughout the debate today, but happens not to be present for the moment, made some points of substance, but I cannot applaud them for some of the deliberate wastage of time.
The speeches by the hon. Member for Perry Barr were the longest. To do him credit, he can generally be relied upon to be fairly pertinent to the subject, but even he had to wander off, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) pointed out, to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
I remind hon. Members about Brooks's club. What does the hon. Member for Barking know about Brooks's club? And what a waste of time it was on the part of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) to refer to the agreement at Brooks's club. I asked him where it was and what it did, but he did not take me up on that.

Mr. Alan Clark: Can we get this matter out of the way?

Mrs. Fenner: Does my hon. Friend want to get it out of the way? Does he know where it is?

Mr. Clark: The question of Brooks's has arisen many times, both in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House.

Perhaps we should have the final definition of it. Brooks's is the club for which Aneurin Bevan was heading when he was kicked down the stairs of White's Club by John Fox Strange ways in the late 1950s. White's club is on one side of St. James's Street. Brooks's club—and Aneurin Bevan was not a member of that either, but he was going as a guest, and it was where he was heading that evening—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is as may be, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this timetable motion.

Mrs. Fenner: I accept that one is likely to wander from order on this matter. However, hon. Members are arguing that they used all of the 44 hours in earnest discussion of the Bill which they find—I quite understand—controversial and something that they wish to oppose. But it is a pity that, for example, in the two long sittings during which they debated the sitting motion they did not find it necessary to get on with main business of debating the clauses of the Bill.
I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North. The school to which the hon. Member for St. Paneras, North referred was Roedean. He asserted that Conservative hon. Gentlemen went to Roedean. I believe it to be a girls' school. Like the hon. Member for St. Paneras, North, I went to a State school. That was totally irrelevant, and it just pointed to the fact that Labour Members were concerned yet again with fighting the old class war, and they did that throughout the debate. I recognise that the hon. Member for Perry Barr sees nothing else in life, but I have to tell him that a number of people who live outside this Chamber find the constant perpetuation of the class war not to their taste.
There were another two items which I found it extraordinary to hear introduced into this earnest debate on an important Bill. We had a dissertation on jumble sales. Labour Members said that it was our jumble and that they had to go to it. That is ridiculous. The hon. Member for Barking embarked upon a long dissertation about the correct nomenclature for " housewife ". At another time, and in another place, I might well have taken up that point, because I resent, as she does, the suggestion that I am married to a house and not to a husband. But


it was hardy the time, and it certainly was not the place, and it was deliberately introduced simply to waste time. I do not think that anyone who listened to that debate could have made any other judgment on some of the topics that were introduced through those long hours of the day and night.
A number of hon. Members have said that if Opposition Members had been filibustering, or using up time, the Chairman would have drawn their attention to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already listed the number of times that the Chairman drew their attention to the fact that they were wandering from the point of the amendment under discussion. Perhaps I may do so with just one illustration. The hon. Member for St. Paneras, North—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—in a speech which covers several pages of the Hansard report, was called to order three times in 25 minutes. It is not surprising, considering his comments on Brooks's club, Roe-dean and so on, that the Chairman found it necessary to do that.
I have already made it clear that when we arrive at clause 2 in Committee I shall have something to say to my right hon. Friend. I shall seek some reassurances from him about the hiccup in the up-rating of the earnings limits for pensioners. Therefore, I do not cravenly accept my Government's policy. However, I accept that my right hon. Friend has given clear assurances in Committee with regard to the uprating of the invalidity pension as soon as resources allow.
I listened carefully to all the comments of all of the hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Lady through the long hours of the day and night—over 44 hours. Much of it was extremely interesting and pertinent, but far too much of it was merely to use up time. I cannot accept this charade, which one has seen from both sides of the House as soon as the Government have had to introduce a guillotine motion. We had the traditional charade, although I know that it was perfectly in order, perpetrated by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) accompanied by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) during business questions last week, of calling " I spy strangers ", when we sit here daily with strangers in

the Gallery exercising their democratic right to come and listen to our proceedings.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is not only a democratic right to have proper discussions in this House, but a democratic right for people outside thoroughly to debate a Bill such as this when it goes completely beyond the Conservative manifesto and when the Government have no mandate for it? In rushing this Bill through the Conservatives are denying those democratic rights, and it is perfectly reasonable for Opposition Members to draw the country's attention to the fact that people are having their democratic rights to debate and to make representations on the Bill taken away by this guillotine motion.

Mrs. Fenner: I could more reasonably accept that premise if the hon. Gentleman had not sat through two long morning sittings simply debating the sittings motion instead of getting on with the clauses of the Bill, which will all receive their publicity outside.
I support my right hon. Friend because it is clear that without this motion it is the earnest intention of Opposition Members to continue to debate the Bill endlessly and not to arrive at the law which the Government have deemed is to go ahead.

Mr. Clement Freud: During the course of the proceedings of the Committee of this Bill we were told that progress was slow, which it inevitably was, because the normal or usual channels had broken down. But then this is because it is not a normal or usual Bill. It is an abnormal or unusual Bill to bring before Parliament. Those of us who oppose it have, I think by common consent, a deep-seated contempt for policies that seek to disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged.
I shall speak more specifically than generally to the timetable motion. Before doing so, however, I wonder whether the Secretary of State will at least tell the House whether he has any elasticity, whether any leeway has been allowed him by the Treasury, so that if he will not mitigate the abatement, arrangement.


cuts—whatever he chooses to call them—with which the recipients of social security will be faced as a result of the Bill, he will at least listen to argument whereby some who are considered, by Opposition Members, to be more needy will be substituted for others. Does the Secretary of State have the right—I shall accept it if he nods—at least to change some of the benefits so that some of the recipients whom we consider to be more deserving will benefit at the expense of others? I see that the Secretary of State makes no sign.
I was not called to speak on the time-table motion on the third occasion, though I admit that we have discussed timetables for some seven of the 44 hours which were available so I felt less deprived than I might have done.
I do not accept the necessary delay in introducing taxability of invalidity benefit. I should dearly like to have had time to debate and consider amendments on that matter, for by putting invalidity benefit into tax the DHSS would receive all the money that it will receive when taxation is finally brought in and those who are least able to afford it will be no worse off. I do not believe that much harm will be done by charging tax to those invalidity pensioners whose spouses earn a modest sum.
It has been said on both sides of the House that what is being done in the Bill was not in the Conservative manifesto. I am sure that the Secretary of State has read what went on in another place. On a day when a Labour Member has sought to bring in a Bill to abolish the House of Lords, which the House voted against, it is only right to point out what has been said there. I understand why the Secretary of State is seeking to curtail debate, but in the time that he has left us there will probably be not more than about three hours' debate on each of the first five clauses and perhaps twice as much for clause 6.
Clearly, clauses 1 and 6 need more debate, but clauses 2 and 4 are equally important. Clause 2 does the opposite to the Conservative manifesto pledge to abolish the earnings rule. The clause will reduce the amount that pensioners will receive in real terms, whereas the abolition of the earnings rule would allow

old people to earn extra in employment without having their pensions docked.
My noble Friend Lord Banks moved an amendment to the original Social Security Bill to abolish the earnings rule. In explaining why the Government have felt it right to curtail arguments on the Bill, I wish to quote from the Hansard of the House of Lords.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not read what a peer said in the current Session. That would be out of order.

Mr. Freud: I have no intention of doing so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to state to this House what was referred to in another place in respect of statements made when the Government were in Opposition. I believe that that is in order. Lord Cullen of Ashbourne said:
 We are convinced that the case put forward by the Conservative Party for many years... is correct... We have concluded that there is no real cost involved in abolishing the earnings rule ",
and Lady Young said:
 We believe that we have the support of thousands of people in the country, and certainly it is the wish of my right hon. Friend Mr. Jenkin ".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 1979; Vol. 399, c. 15–31.]
The noble Lady was referring to the abolition of the earnings rule.
I believe that when the taxability angle was discussed, insufficient thought was given to the matter. I admit that there are all sorts of benefits on which there is abuse—and invalidity benefit is as open to abuse as are mileage charges, tax returns and so on—but there are cases in which it is vastly unfair and wrong to punish those in receipt of invalidity benefit.
I particularly wish to point the attention of the Secretary of State to those who suffer from Huntington's chorea. I have a number of such people in my constituency, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that it is one of the most tragic and debilitating diseases. It is hereditary and does not manifest itself until people reach the middle thirties or forties, which means that it will frequently have been passed on to others, with the awful attendant misery to those at risk.
Those who suffer from Huntington's Chorea need 24 hours a day attention. They are permanently and steadily vibrating and knocking things over. They are often unable to lie still and sometimes unable even to sleep. They are recipients of the benefit that the Secretary of State seeks to cut or, as he calls it, to abate. By all means let the benefit come into taxability. That will certainly sort out those who have to live solely on the invalidity benefit—which bears in mind the element of care which is required of the spouse of the beneficiary—from those whose healthier half is able to work for gain. It is wrong to curtail our debates on that matter.
The Bill has had a most miserable and unsatisfactory Committee. In the democracy on which we pride ourselves, the only weapon available to the Opposition is time. Many high-sounding phrases have been uttered about the importance of what we have done in Committee. It was inevitable that we would do what we have done, because that was the only way to remain in order. We have not discussed what has happened, because all that we can do in order to show our disapproval of something that must be disapproved of, is to waste time within the bounds of order. We have done our best. We spent seven and a half hours discussing the timetable. That was time wasting of a high order. All that the Conservative Members could do was to sit still. It must be infuriating for them. I pay credit to Labour Members on the Committee for their diligence and the way in which they went on carrying the message. However, I must also pay credit to Conservative Members for staying there at all times.
But there must be a more satisfactory way for Parliament to effect legislation than to go through the sort of charades that we have gone through and for which we are promised another 27 hours.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but surely he will agree that there is another way of effecting legislation. If either side, operating through the usual channels on the basis that a Bill will get through by a certain date anyway, can agree the amount of time that should be made available to each clause in Committee, we could discuss each clause in an even way.

Mr. Freud: I am amazed at the ingenuousness of the hon. Gentleman, who has admittedly not been here long. At the beginning of my speech I asked the Secretary of State whether he had authority from the Treasury to concede a single penny of the amount that he was asked to get or even to vary those who will be hit by the abatements. I said that I would accept a nod, but nothing came. Does the hon. Member for Dorset, North Mr. Baker) believe that anything could have been achieved by Opposition Members speaking for shorter or longer times, when there was not one penny in the bucket with which to negotiate?
I was taken by the elegant intervention of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who seems to come and go, and is currently gone. In one of the hon. Gentleman's club interventions, he referred to my connection with the excellent Playboy clubs. I am indebted to him for that free commercial, but not even the admirable Playboy clubs operate the sort of unsocial timetable which the Committee on the Bill has been practising. To suggest that I miss all-night meetings of Committee in order to perform a function for the Playboy club—and my only function with Playboy is to advise it on food and drink, in the most social hours—is some way from the truth.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the timetable motion because we feel that the Government have no mandate to introduce this legislation. Not only have they no mandate, because much of what they are now introducing was not in their manifesto, but, as I said earlier today, speaking in the debate on the House of Lords, only 33·3 per cent. of the people who have the vote voted for this Government. Therefore, I feel that to maintain that this gives them a right is already wrong; to insist on a right which was not even advertised in the manifesto is that much more wrong, and we shall oppose the motion.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I am a member of the Standing Committee on this Bill and therefore can claim to have some understanding of the importance of the Bill. Indeed, it raises many very important issues. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) mentioned one when he discussed most movingly the incidence of Huntington's chorea. Any


Bill which deals with issues such as the level of benefits, the earnings rule, earnings-related supplements, and supplementary benefit for strikers—which has not been mentioned yet—is important. These are serious matters and, as such, are deserving of considered debate. It must be recognised that there are many arguments to be put for or against this Bill, and certainly the country would expect this Bill, with its important issues, to be properly discussed, and certainly our constituencies would expect that.
From all the protestations and actions of the Opposition, we would expect them to take this matter seriously. Yet I am bound to say that because of their behaviour in Committee we have to question how important and serious these issues are to them. I am a relative newcomer to this House, and the Committee considering this Bill is only my second Standing Committee, but in no way can anyone say that our proceedings can be called a rational debate. The debate on the sittings motion, as the House has already heard, went on for two days. We then moved on to clause 1—or, rather, we meandered on, turning the subject backwards and forwards, with the Opposition being intent on wasting time. Indeed, it was a charade and we have to respect and wonder at the versatility and imagination of the Opposition members of the Committee, who managed so well to toss the subject from one to the other, to get up to ask the questions, to intervene and almost to inspire points of order.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) have already mentioned much of what has taken place. It is like some interminable fugue by Bach, with the themes being played over and over again, and, as with Bach, they often go on long into the night. It is quite clear that no serious debate has been intended. Certainly some points have been made, but that has not been the aim or thrust of the Opposition. Their main aim has been to waste time.
I have over some months acquired considerable respect for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who I am afraid is not in his place. He is a doughty fighter for many causes, however ill advised, as we have

learnt today from the discussion on his Ten-Minute Bill, but my respect for him has diminished during the Committee proceedings upstairs. He, as always, has been full of argument, but the arguments have been long-winded, evasive and full of sound. His interminable ramblings have lacked substance or any relevance to the Bill. Coming from a man of such calibre, this behaviour has one of two possible explanations: either he does not care about the issues of the Bill, or he is determined not to have a serious debate because that would mean making progress on the Bill. If we are to be charitable, as I think we have to be, we must accept that he, with many of his hon. Friends, cares very much about the issues. Therefore, the second explanation has to be accepted, that he and his hon. Friends are doing what they are doing just to prevent progress.
As I have said, this is a serious Bill and it deserves serious debate.

Mr. Race: I am most grateful to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill is serious and deserves serious debate, but could he explain to the House how it is possible to have a serious debate about an issue like the " Why work? " issue without a single contribution being made from the Government Back Benches about it and how the Bill relates to it?

Mr. Carlisle: I rose to make one small and, as I believed, relevant intervention, but it provoked from the Opposition a debate which, with interventions and points of order, must have continued for at least three hours. It is precisely for this reason that I believe that if we are to have a serious debate we must have a guillotine so that the important issues may be given disciplined consideration. Surely that is what the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) are asking for. They are asking that the really important matters be clearly debated; they are asking that all the irrelevance we have had to suffer be ended.
Indeed, it would not be a bad thing if all Bills were guillotined from the beginning, but I am afraid that that leads me on to a question of constitutional procedures, discussion on which you


would probably rule out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Therefore, I shall resist the temptation, which certainly has not been resisted by the Opposition in Committee, of branching out into the question of constitutional reform.
The conduct of the Opposition on this Bill makes it imperative that this serious Bill should have the reasoned debate which it merits. For this reason, I support the motion.

Mr. Ken Easfham: I was very interested when last week the Leader of the House announced the timetable motion for this week. He was very dismissive, saying that the Bill was only a six-clause Bill, as if it had no importance, no significance and no influence on the outside world. We, quite justifiably, feel very indignant about this.
I am making a prediction that when the electorate at large realises how it has been deceived, when it understands what the Conservative Government are really playing at, it will see what a shabby Bill this is, with the Conservative Government acting little better than pickpockets, taking away from the poorest to give to the rich, as they have constantly done since the day they were elected.
Earlier this afternoon the Secretary of State referred to savings. We deny this. We constantly say that these are cuts. The Government should not be making any excuses. They ought to tell the electorate clearly what they are doing; and if they will not do it, it is our intention to do so. We shall constantly say that we are debating a vicious Bill which makes cuts affecting the less-well-off. Because the Bill is so vicious, we are entitled to consider it in the greatest depth. The Leader of the House was dismissive in saying that it was only a six-clause Bill, but practically every clause will bring misery to many sectors of the community.
The Bill's title is " Social Security (No. 2) Bill ". We should call it the " Insecurity Bill ", because in order to feel secure people need to be free of fear. With my hon. Friends, I believe that the Government are trying to instill fear into people, trying to deny them benefits that they should receive. The Bill turns the clock

back fifty years. It will have unprecedented effects on the poorest sections of the community.
During the debates in Committee I asked the Secretary of State whether the Government had made any inquiries of the TUC and the CBI. In their indecent haste to get this shabby Bill through, the Government are proceeding in stocking feet, hoping that no one will know anything about it until the day when the unfortunate people concerned are told " We are very sorry, but this is the law." The Secretary of State said many times, when trying to apologise, " I accept that there are one or two ragged edges." But we are talking about people, about the sufferings of the old, the infirm, invalids and mothers expecting to receive maternity benefits.
The poor underdogs are having to pay for the Government's massive handouts to the rich and for the indecent bank profits recently announced. There is no extra productivity from the rich and those making the profits. One Conservative Member said that savings had to be made because of the economic situation. Yet these cuts are being made only two or three weeks after we learnt that the banks had made astronomical profits—about £1,500 million. They have made no sacrifices. Yet Conservative Members say, with cant and hypocrisy, "We must make changes. We are very sorry. We should like to do better, but we must clobber the unfortunate in society."
The Tory manifesto was presented to the people only a year ago. I have referred to it many times in Committee. It is a joke. On page 23 we read of helping the family. Under the heading
 Making Sense of Social Security 
the Conservatives promise to
 bring more effective help to those in greatest need.
I could go on quoting the sickening contents of a false manifesto that sold the Conservatives to the British people in the 1979 general election.
When the Bill was about to be published, it was thought that it would be a a simple trade union bashing Bill. The Government think that trade union bashing is very popular. They thought that people would not mind some of their actions, which they hoped to justify. However, there is only one clause dealing with


trade union bashing, and there are several other clauses quite separate from vengeance on the trade unions. The trade union clause will give a possible saving of only £1 million. Yet clause 1 will involve £140 million, affecting people with maternity rights, invalidity benefit and injury benefit, the very benefits that people have been paying for.
When I think about paying a premium for benefits, I wonder what would happen if a motorist paying for a fully comprehensive policy were told by the insurers " We shall pay out only on third-party, fire and theft." Would that be acceptable? Here we have parallels. People have been paying for many years for the benefits that they are now to be denied.
Whom does the Bill attack? I could give many illustrations. We are indignant about the Government's rushing the Bill through, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said at the first Committee sitting, we want time to digest some of the information that is fed back to us. As the weeks go by we are receiving many letters from many disadvantaged groups. Letters are now beginning to come in from the trade unions. Only this morning I received a long, detailed letter from the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, of which I am a member. The union is entitled to be considered, to have its thoughts expressed here. The writer of the letter says:
 What is the position of a trade unionist finding him or herself involved in a trade dispute by actions of the employers, such as a lock-out—should the £12 be deducted in lockout circumstances? One has to take into consideration some unions do pay dispute pay and some unions cannot afford to pay dispute pay; frequently it is dependent upon the constitution of the union concerned, but I can say no trade union could afford to pay out dispute or strike benefit to members being locked-out by their Employers.
I hope that the Bill will not be rushed through because of this miserable guillotine motion. I hope that we can debate some of the information that is coming to us. There has been no debate in Committee. Conservative hon. Members have said nothing of any consequence about the Bill in this debate, but they have spoken 10 times longer than they have done in Committee. Yet they say that they want time upstairs to debate the Bill. We are desirous that they go on

record and clearly tell the electorate how they justify this shabby little piece of legislation, this six-clause Bill. When the time comes they will pay a high price at the next election.
We are following a correct course. We are to the best of our ability earnestly fighting the Bill. It is the worst legislation since the 1930s. It completely lacks compassion. It is a Bill of shame. I hope we shall throw out the motion.

7 pm

Mr. Michael Colvin: I support the proposition for a timetable on the Bill. Having spent the first two Standing Committee sittings in meaningless argument about why Opposition Members could not meet on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons, and having seen the second sitting end in complete disorder and uproar, with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) bellowing like a wounded elephant, I began to appreciate that the Bill's passage through Committee might well be stormy. That being so, there would seem to be every reason for making the storm as short as possible and discussion on the measures contained in the Bill as constructive as possible.
From the way in which Opposition Members have been speaking, it was clear that with their propensity for hot air they would waffle on interminably, wasting the Committee's time and contributing little that could be described as constructive. I would not mind that too much were it not for the repetitiveness of their arguments, many of which are irrelevant. My hon. Friends and I can stand a certain amount of repetitiveness, but irrele-vancies are not acceptable in a Committee which has a great deal to discuss.
Much of the hot air generated by Opposition Members has been totally irrelevant to our discussions and it has been difficult for my hon. Friend and me to resist being drawn into meaningless discussions with Opposition Members. However, we can take credit for having resisted that temptation on many occasions.
There has been much talk from Labour Members, for instance, about the agricultural interests of some of my hon Friends and myself. There may be some tenuous connection between industrial injuries and agriculture—I accept that—but it is


hardly enough to warrant a two-hour debate on how Conservative Members earn their living. Perhaps Labour Members should have done more research and homework on the subject. Only three on the Conservative side of the Committee have any agricultural interests. That compares fairly well with two on die Opposition side who have interests in or experience of agriculture. We are fairly evenly matched there.
It so happens that my hon. Friends who have agricultural interests also have industrial, commercial and trade union interests. We may not have the trade union interests that Opposition Members have. I have done some homework, and I know that every Opposition Member of the Committee is a member of a trade union and more than half are sponsored by trade unions. That explains why they had to spend another hour of the Committee's time in discussing why the TUC had not been consulted about the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Race: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that one reason why the Government want discussion on the Bill to be terminated as quickly as possible in Committee is that he and his hon Friends have outside interests and need all the time they can muster to attend to them?

Mr. Colvin: That is an irrelevant intervention. That is not so. We want meaningful discussion on the Bill because we have contributions to make.
I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) about earnings-related supplements. The Committee may hear more about that from the Government side of the Committee when we get to it.
Labour Members feel that they have some wonderful experience of industry which Conservative Members lack. It is interesting to look down the list to see what is their interest and experience. They are involved in planning, they have been chartered engineers, research officers, training officers and teachers. There is not much real industrial experience on the Labour side. There is even one hon. Member who is an architect.
The only person on the Opposition side to have been involved in industry is the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). She is the only one who

has been near enough to industry before entering the House to get grease under her finger nails. She also happens to be a member of two trade unions, one of which is my union, so I have great pleasure in paying her a fraternal compliment on her experience.
I should not overlook the industrial experience of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis). As a miner, he is one of the few who have come face to face with industrial injury, and his experience in that connection is extremely valuable.
Experience of trade unions and agriculture, important though it may be in passing to the Committee's deliberations, is not the crux of the matter.
There have been other irrelevancies that we have been drawn into by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Fife, Central made two references to the Royal Family which were pointless departures on his pet hobby horse. We must give him credit where credit is due. Although he spent a lot of time discussing nuclear-powered submarines, he twice threatened to bring the Royal yacht into the debate, but showed masterly restraint in resisting that temptation. We may not have had a trip on the Royal yacht, but we have had to listen to many Labour Members departing on ideological trips in their speeches. It is as if they believe that they have a predestined and exclusive right to social conscience in Parliament. That is not true, and it is not borne out by the election result.
The only constructive contributions that Labour Members have made to the debate in Committee were those in which they have spoken to their briefs. I do not mean the briefs provided by their research officers, which I know are difficult to read. There have been pregnant pauses in the Committee's deliberations when hon. Members have been stuck on a word or two. I should like to pay tribute to the voluntary and outside groups which have supplied briefs to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
Some of the organisations which have contributed a great deal to the enlightenment of both sides and much useful and explanatory information are as follows: the Child Poverty Action Group, the Disability Income Group, the Council of


Post Office Unions, RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—the Northern Ireland Council for Social Service, and Age Concern.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for supplying notes on the Bill in preparation for our debate, but the briefs produced by people outside have been more useful and easier to understand.
Labour Members spent another hour discussing the leaflet "Changes to the supplementary benefit scheme and how they affect you" which was produced to explain some of the contents of the Bill. I find it fairly difficult to understand, and yet it is supposed to be an explanatory leaflet. I think that I am fairly average when it comes to reading leaflets such as this. It is high time that the Government learnt to produce leaflets that are understandable to the average member of the public and are not veiled in the normal jargon to which they have become accustomed. We are all grateful for the help given to us by voluntary bodies, and we applaud their efforts on our behalf.
I do not think that any hon. Member enjoys discussing this Bill. No one, least of all politicians, enjoys making difficult and unpalatable decisions, even when those decisions are necessary. Those decisions have been avoided for so long that they are now much harder to take. However, action is overdue, and I am sure that the action proposed in the Bill will be most welcome. The worst burden that my hon. Friends and I had to bear in Committee was to listen to the self-righteous indignation of Labour Members, whose last spell in Government contributed so greatly to the problems currently facing the nation, particularly less well-off people.
There are many good reasons for supporting this motion, but few better than the old stricture that, if unpleasant action has to be taken, the sooner it is taken the better.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is hoped that the winding-up speeches will begin at 7.20 p.m.

Mr. Frank Field: I have nine minutes in which to speak, during

which time I wish to dwell on three of the welter of reasons why this timetable motion should be opposed, or, alternatively, why Labour Members need more time to discuss the Bill.
The first and perhaps the most important reason is that the policies that the Government are pursuing against the poor are at variance with all their other policies. If we look at the general trend of the economic policies of the Government, it can be seen that they believe in giving incentives to people to stand on their own two feet and to provide for themselves. This Bill provides the opposite to that for those on benefit. It contains the beginnings of an apartheid policy for the poor.
You, Mr. Speaker, will know better than most right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber that when working people collectively began to provide for their well-being, they did so through friendly societies. That action was taken over by the building up of a national insurance scheme. The Bill attacks the principle of national insurance, and it attacks working people who try to provide for themselves when they are in need. That is one example of how this aspect of Government policy is at variance with the rest of their policies. Another example is the issue of child benefits. If we were moving towards a society that supported and rewarded people who were trying to improve their own and their family's lot by their own efforts, we would have had a real increase in child benefits, not a decrease.
The Government have tried to present the child benefit increase as a real increase. It is nothing of the kind. It devalues child benefit, because it is two years since most families received their last real increase in this benefit. Because there was no real increase in child benefit, and because the Government are concerned about the "Why work?" syndrome, they cut the children's rates in the national insurance benefit even more viciously than the adult rates.
Much has been said by my hon. Friends about the cut in unemployment sickness benefit and disability benefit. If I have time, Mr. Speaker, I shall return to that point. Whereas the Government are legislating for an 11½ per cent. increase in unemployment and sick pay, the increase in rates for the children of those


who are unemployed or sick is about 6 per cent. That follows logically from the failure of the Government to meet their commitment on child benefits. So, the first reason why the Opposition need time to discuss the Bill further is that we want to convince Conservative Members that the poor are being unfairly treated and that the general trend of policies that are thought proper for the majority of the population are not being extended to the poor.
I shall mention the second reason only briefly because, rightly, it has been touched upon by a number of my hon. Friends. We are debating real cuts in benefits for the first time in 50 years. It is interesting to note the way in which the Government have tried to manage public opinion on this point. When they gave Adam Raphael the first news about the cuts in benefits, they were proud to say that they were cuts. Then they began to think that perhaps these cuts were not as popular as they had first thought. So we no longer hear talk about cuts. Instead, all the emphasis is about abatements. We are told that this is the first stage towards taxing benefits, but many of the groups who are affected would not pay tax if these benefits were brought into the tax net, so why should we abate their benefits? We have reached the absurd position, particularly regarding the disabled, where the majority of people would not pay tax, but under this Bill we are abating, or cutting, their benefits. That is the second reason why we need more time. We need to spell out the extent to which the Government are, as described in the book of Genesis, sewing fig leaves together to hide their nakedness. And abatement does make a very good fig-leaf. The Government are calling the cuts abatements—the first stage towards taxing benefits. They are nothing of the kind.
We cannot consider the Social Security (No. 2) Bill without considering the two Conservative Budgets. The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fermer) chided my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for his language about class warfare. I put a question to her. If hon. Members have experienced two Budgets, the first giving the richest 7 per cent. of the community tax handouts of £1,560 million, and the second giving the richest 2 per cent. of the community 14 per

cent. of all net tax reductions, and to help pay for those cuts we embark on real cuts in benefits for the first time for 50 years, who is right to say that we are witnessing class action—Labour Members or Conservative Members?

Mrs. Fenner: Will the hon. Gentleman say which of the benefits is not subjected to this abatement of supplementary benefit? Does he agree that it is for the poorest and the most needy?

Mr. Field: That is a valuable intervention. Had the Government been true to their philosophy they would have cut that benefit, rather than insurance benefits. I did not expect the Secretary of State to cut the insurance benefits for which people have paid.
I turn to the third reason why we shall oppose the guillotine motion tonight. Before voting, we need to spend a little time looking more carefully than hitherto at the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State. Hon. Members who have been present throughout the debates will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) said when we were discussing the Social Security (No. 1) Bill that he had every voluntary organisation within his boundaries. He now says that benefit books are being printed in his constituency. I ask the Secretary of State to tell us why the order books are already being printed when we are still discussing the Bill and the guillotine motion.
The Secretary of State said " This is necessary. One has to get on with the work." I obtained the Hansard report of the debate on the Government's guillotine motion on the Social Security (No. 1) Bill. During that debate the right hon. Gentleman made three important statements. First, he said:
 If the Bill were delayed beyond the end of May, revised order books would already have been issued on the basis of changes contained in the Bill.
In the following column he added:
 If the order books had been drawn up on the basis of the provisions in the Bill and, thereafter, the Bill was altered because it had been delayed, the order might well be wrong and it would have to be recalled and sent out again.
In the next column he referred to complications and said:
 That is why it is essential for the Bill to becomes law by the end of May."—[Official


Report, 25 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 1030–32.]
If that was right for the Social Security (No. 1) Bill, it must equally be right for the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. There is no chance of the Bill becoming law before the end of May. Either the right hon. Gentleman was right and he did not mislead the House on the first occasion, or he is misleading the House today. He cannot have it both ways.
There are three reasons why we seek more time to discuss this measure. One is to try to convince Conservative Members that the policy that they are pursuing for the poor is at variance with all their other policies. We wish to bring it in line. Secondly, we want to discuss at length and to probe the first real cuts in benefits since the 1930s. Thirdly, we are not prepared to take at face value the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House for the need for the Bill to be rushed through. Either he misled the House today or he misled it on the earlier occasion when he introduced a similar motion.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I have listened to most of the debate. I have missed only one speech. That was through no discourtesy on my part. I had to leave the Chamber.
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I make no apology for the conduct of my hon. Friends in Committee. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) has let the cat out of the bag. He had the brass face to thank all the outside pressure groups whose clients are helped by, interested in, affected by and attacked by the Bill. These are the groups that the Secretary of State refuses to meet while the Bill is passing through the House. The hon. Gentleman had the brass face to read out a list of pressure groups and to thank them. All that he has done—I accept metaphorically—is to put all their published material straight into the rubbish bin. On not one occasion has he advanced the case that the pressure groups have put to us.

Mr. Colvin: Mr. Colvin rose—

Mr. Rooker: No, I am not giving way. There is no time for me to do so. The only deal that I have done at any stage of the Bill's progress is to agree to resume

my place at 7.30 pm. That is the only deal that I will make with the Government while dealing with the Bill. Therefore, there is no time for me to give way to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West.
It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not undertaken his research properly. If 25 years of instrument-making by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has not involved getting grease under his fingernails, I do not know what will. The hon. Gentleman implies that there is a lack of industrial experience among Labour Members. He is wrong on that score, as with many of his other comments.
The sittings motion was brought before the Committee without so much as a "by your leave." The Government made no attempt to allow the Committee to sit for conventional hours. That approach indicates that the Government are in the mould to which Lord Hailsham used to refer when in Opposition—namely, that of the elected dictatorship. They are not interested in hearing arguments advanced inside or outside the House. That is typified by the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to meet the outside bodies that are concerned.
What is wrong if a few hon. Members are called to order during their speeches? There is nothing disreputable about that. There were occasions when, because of the lateness of the hour, because we were forced to have two Chairmen during only three days of sitting, and because the chairmen have had to read annotated Hansard reports, points of order were subsequently shown to be points of clarification for the Chairman of the moment.
The amendments have been complex. The issue of national insurance benefits is extremely complex. If an hon. Member is called to order, that does not mean that he has strayed out of order deliberately. Conservative Members snigger, but the record proves that on a number of occasions hon. Members were shown not to be out of order.
We have had more speeches today from Conservative members of the Committee than in 44 hours in Committee. It would not have been so bad if we had had some decent answers from Ministers. The Secretary of State has served on Committee. He knows that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security cannot cope


with the necessary all-night sittings. We know that from the previous Bill.
I must give the Secretary of State his due. He has attended the Committee diligently. He missed a Cabinet meeting to do so. However, that has not made up for the triviality and paucity of some of his replies. That triviality and paucity were transcended by one of the replies of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who treated the debate with a degree of contempt that was not expected of her by some of my hon. Friends.
The Secretary of State recited a long list of hon. Members who made long speeches. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has had to be on his feet almost continually to answer our questions and our debates. He has had to do so because his hon. Friends have not given him any support. We make no complaint about that. However, on one occasion Conservative Members had difficulty in returning from the bars and dining-rooms in this place. The right hon. Gentleman found that he did not have his majority after the dinner break. He had to speak for 25 minutes longer than he anticipated. The Government Whip entered the Committee Room after he had been on his feet for over 20 minutes and put his thumbs up to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman could resume his place.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—

Mr. Rooker: No, I am not giving way. It is on the record. The Under-Secretary of State will reply and she can offer an answer. I have seen the properly printed Hansard report in the past hour, and it is recorded that I said to the Minister that he could sit down as he had his majority. That was picked up and it appears on the record. The Whip knows that I am telling the truth.
It is said that there has been repetition in Committee. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled several amendments that we considered were crucial. Is that repetition? I do not think that Conservative Members understand the depth of our opposition to the Bill. They will get the signs. In due course the Leader of the House will become involved. If Conservative Members think that all will be sweetness and light in the Chamber once they secure the guillotine motion and get the Bill out of Committee, they have another thought coming.
It is no part of my job to cause you any problems, Mr. Speaker. No hon. Member would wish to do that. However, the Opposition will not counsel Labour Members to co-operate in the normal running of business in the House. The Government have a large majority but it will not be possible on many days for them to do what they want when they want to do it. That will not be possible if Labour Members are so minded as not to let them have that facility. That is the only way left to Labour Members to indicate the strength of their opposition to the Bill.
The Bill is being bounced through the House by means of a guillotine motion. That is being done by a Government whose Back Benchers are not prepared to give their support. I am not surprised about that. Opposition Members have had to make speeches on behalf of the constituents of Tory Members to demonstrate how they are affected by the Bill. We have indicated how widows, the unemployed, the sick and the disabled will be affected in the constituencies of Conservative Members. We have done so because they have refused to do so.
The Secretary of State has borne the burden of the Bill. He has admitted that he has refused to meet pressure groups. We know why he has taken that attitude. He could have found the time to meet them. He could have done so between weekends and in the mornings. He found time to address meetings during the intervening weekends.
The Sunday Times recently did a big spread on the Government. In that report it is stated that the right hon. Gentleman is having a rough year. It has not finished yet. The article states that he is being
 keenly watched by Mrs. Thatcher for any signs of weakening under pressure from what she regards as bleeding heart pressure groups.
It so happens that those are the very groups that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West described. When the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State were in opposition they argued against the Labour Government from the Opposition Dispatch Box. That Government did not cut benefits. However, they criticised them for not doing enough. The hon. Lady is described in The Sunday


Times as being a libertarian. Her description in The Sunday Times reads:
 Bright, blonde, votes for the rope.
She is one of the senior spokesmen for the so-called bleeding heart pressure groups. It defies belief that she has the gall to stay in government and to defend the Bill after all that she has said. Any credibility that she might have had when she was in opposition, and spoke from this Dispatch Box, has disappeared. I would not be surprised if pressure groups saw the light of day about her attitude. It does not square.
We know that the Secretary of State is being keenly watched, and we would expect such an attitude from him. Perhaps the hon. Lady is taking a leaf out of the book of her right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security. She is being egged on yet more to bash the underdog, the disabled and the unemployed. That is what this Bill is about. The Government seek to bash the work-wounded. The Secretary of State will rue the day that he ignored our warnings about cuts in industrial injury benefit. If anybody wants an excuse for joining the day of action on 14 May, he should know that 22 million workers are potential victims of industrial accidents. Their benefits will be cut. Their workmates' benefits will be cut if they are injured, or wounded at work. This Bill cuts the amount of benefit that a widow may receive if her husband is wounded at work. That alone is sufficient reason to throw out the Bill. Moreover, it is sufficient reason for the public to take the kind of action that this House cannot take.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The House is well aware—or will have become aware during the debate—of why the Government had to seek a timetable motion for the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. We know that it is a short Bill. The Government have never doubted that it would be controversial. However, it would be wrong to reiterate all the arguments in favour of the Bill, as if we were on Second Reading.
The House gave the Bill a Second Reading on 15 April, by a majority of 55. We are debating an allocation of

time motion. The debate is not about the principles of the Bill, much as Opposition Members might like it to be. Nor is this a debate about the size of the Bill. Many right hon. and hon. Members know that this House has discussed far larger Bills in a much shorter space of time. The debate concerns precedents. Precedent does not allow the rules of the House to be misused. It does not entitle the Opposition to prevent due passage of the Bill through all its stages.
While we fully understand the Opposition's vehemence towards the Bill, that is not a sufficient reason to prevent its progress. Precedent does not entitle the Opposition deliberately to set out to frustrate the will of the House, which was expressed clearly on Second Reading.
I turn to guillotine motions of past years. Between 1975 and 1979 no fewer than 12 Bills were guillotined. Between 1970 and 1974 the Conservative Government guillotined five Bills. Since the subject has been raised I shall quote from a debate on a guillotine motion. The quotation states:
 Timetabling, whatever else may be said of it, at least prevents such tactics and it discourages interminable and excessive discussion which will always tend to bring Parliament into disrepute."—[Official Report, 18 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 51.]
It was not one of my right hon. or hon. Friends that made that comment, but the then Leader of the House, Mr. Herbert Bowden.
My hon. Friends have repeatedly told us that in Committee Opposition Member after Opposition Member set out to frustrate the will of the House, as expressed on Second Reading. They even tried to pretend that the guillotine motion on the Selective Employment Payments Bill had been agreed between the parties before the Committee stage. That was not so.
The strongest comment that I could make has already been made by the Shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) He said:
 I do not believe that this House should proceed on the basis that a guillotine is a stranger to its proceedings.
Indeed it is not. It is a legitimate part of our Parliamentary process and the reason for our timetable motion has been made quite clear.
The motion is about the Bill's rate of progress, but the debate has been about


a lack of progress. There have been over 44 hours of debate in Committee, and two all-night sittings. We have dealt with about 10 groups of amendments to clause 1. The Committee is now discussing amendments to clause 1(3). We are about half-way through the first of six main clauses, and two subsidiary clauses. More than four more amendments have been tabled to clause 1. The motion is necessary not only because 24 further groups of amendments have been selected for debate, but because the Opposition are completely and utterly determined to delay reasonable progress.
At our first sitting the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the Opposition would not facilitate the Bill's passage. Opposition Members were so busy interrupting one another that it was remarkable that Hansard— with all its skill—managed to get the quotes right. A week later the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) discussed the Bill—not the amendment—again. He was busy stating his case, and claimed that the Opposition would deal with the six clauses as follows:
 If necessary, we will sit three days a week, open-ended, for the next two months."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 29 April 1980, c. 361.]
I calculate that that will amount to a further 250 hours of discussion. That means that we shall spend over 40 hours per clause.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Not enough.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. [Interruption.] It is easy to see why the Opposition need so much time on each clause in Committee. They are not debating the amendments. They are still fighting the principles that the House has agreed. The right hon. Member for Salford, West made a Second Reading speech today. He referred to matters that have already been made perfectly clear. However, the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) spoke not only as if we were in the midst of a Second Reading debate, when we were well into a debate on clause 1, but as if the Second Reading had not taken place. He went back to the general election. He was busy re-fighting battles that had been fought years before.

The attitude summed up by the hon. Member for Perry Barr has led to the need for this motion. After some debate on 1 May, he said that the Opposition were not prepared to be reasonable. That is what the motion is all about. He told us that the only deal that he was prepared to do with me concerned the time at which he should sit down, but he did not even keep to that. He was a minute late. We would not have got as far as we have in Committee if debate after debate had not been closured.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr is at least consistent in some of his actions. In 1976 he voted time after time in one night in favour of five guillotine motions. He did not demur in those days. However, the Bills were at least as controversial as that before us tonight. On that same night, one of the Bills being guillotined was the Health Services Bill. His right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) will recall that occasion. That Bill was guillotined after 42½ hours of debate. By that time, progress had been made on seven clauses.

Mr. Ennals: Mr. Ennals rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I wish to speak for only a further two or three minutes.

Mr. Ennals: Mr. Ennals rose—

Mrs. Chalker: It is a fallacy to think that the Opposition would facilitate progress on the Bill if there were unlimited time. I notice that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is not here. Perhaps he has taken the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice).
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was the bizarre author of five guillotines in one night. However, he has learnt. Only a few months ago the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said:
 generally guillotine motions are required to get highly controversial party measures through the House. There is nothing wrong with highly controversial party measures. I am all in favour of them. They are some of the main transactions that have to be put through the House. Often, they can be put through only with the assistance of the guillotine."—[Official Report, 29 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 1265.]
A number of different accusations have been made during the debate, as one would expect. An accusation has been made about the order books. Right hon.


Gentlemen are aware that no order books for future benefits have been dispatched. The will of the House has not in any way been frustrated. Some order books have been printed, but there is no way in which we can complete the operation—with which the right hon. Member for Salford, West is thoroughly familiar—unless we are prepared to start our internal processes in anticipation. Over the years Government after Government have done that.
Another accusation that was made continually concerned my right hon. Friend not meeting outside groups. He has not refused to do so. He said merely that he was unable to do so during the current stage of the Bill. During the past few weeks officials of our Department have met outside groups on our behalf. As Ministers, we shall be meeting those groups between the Committee stage and later stages of the Bill.
I can best sum up the debate by quoting from the late Iain Macleod, when, back in 1962, he said:

" The fundamental fact which we, as the House of Commons, have to consider is that with our procedures, which have grown up over so many years, any Bill... will, if it is sufficiently disliked by the Opposition, result in a situation in which the Government must ask for allocation of time powers or drop the Bill."—[Official Report, 7 March 1962; Vol. 655, c. 432.]

This Bill is an essential part of the Budget strategy. It is not for me to spell out why or wherefore. It could not be brought forward before the Budget, because it is part of the Budget strategy. I ask the House to accept the motion—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER put the question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 246.

Division No. 282]
AYES
[7.45 pm


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh M)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fletcher Cooke, Charles


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Forman, Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Channon, Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Arnold Tom
Chapman, Sydney
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, W. S.
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fry, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cockeram, Eric
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Banks, Robert
Colvin, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cope, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bell, Sir Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhew, Victor


Bendall, Vivian
Corrie, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Costain, A. P.
Gow, Ian


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Critchley, Julian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Crouch, David
Greenway, Harry


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Grieve, Percy


Blackburn, John
Dickens, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Blaker, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dover, Denshore
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gummer, John Selwyn


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dunlop, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'il)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bright, Graham
Durant, Tony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brinton, Tim
Dykes, Hugh
Hannam, John


Brittan, Leon
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Paul


Brotherton, Michael
Eggar, Timothy
Hawksley, Warren


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Elliott, Sir William
Hayhoe, Barney


Browne, John (Winchester)
Emery, Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Eyre, Reginald
Heddle, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Henderson, Barry


Buck, Antony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Heseltlne, Rt Hon Michael


Budgen, Nick
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Hicks, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Farr, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burden, F. A.
Fell, Anthony
Hill, James


Butcher, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Butler, Hon Adam
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hooson, Tom




Hordern, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Moate, Roger
Speller, Tony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Moore, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morgan, Geraint
Sproat, Iain


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Squire, Robin


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stainton, Keith


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Christopher
Stanley, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Myles, David
Steen, Anthony


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Needham, Richard
Stevens, Martin


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Kimball, Marcus
Neubert, Michael
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Newton, Tony
Stokes, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, J.


Knight, Mrs Jill
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Tapsell, Peter


Knox, David
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Lamont, Norman
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Lang, Ian
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Tebbit, Norman


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parris, Matthew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Latham, Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Lawrence, Ivan
Patten, John (Oxford)
Thompson, Donald


Lawson, Nigel
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lee, John
Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pink, R. Bonner
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pollock, Alexander
Trippier, David


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutand)
Porter, George
Trotter, Neville


Lloyd, lan (Havant & Waterloo)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Loveridge, John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Viggers Peter


Luce, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Lyell, Nicholas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wakeham, John


McCrindle, Robert
Raison, Timothy



Macfarlane, Neil
Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


MacGregor, John
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Macmillan Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Renton Tim
Wall, Patrick


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Ridsdale, Julian
Warren, Kenneth


Madel, David
Rifkind, Malcolm
Watson, John


Major, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marland, Paul
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Marlow, Tony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wheeler, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rossi, Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mates, Michael
Rost, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Mather, Carol
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Mawby, Ray
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Scott, Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Mayhew, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mellor, David
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael



Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Silvester, Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Sims, Roger
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Anthony Berry.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Campbell, lan
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Adams, Allen
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dempsey, James


Allaun, Frank
Canavan, Dennis
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Cant, R. B.
Dixon, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Carmichael, Neil
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dormand, Jack


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Cartwright, John
Dubs, Alfred


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Coleman, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Conlan, Bernard
Eastham, Ken


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Robin F.
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Crowther, J. S.
English, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cryer, Bob
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bradley, Tom
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Evans, John (Newton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dalyell, Tam
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Davidson, Arthur
Field, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Fitch, Alan


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fitt, Gerard


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Flannery, Martin







Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCusker, H.
Ryman, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sandelson, Neville


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Sever, John


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sheerman, Barry


Foster, Derek
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Foulkes, George
McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Freud, Clement
McNally, Thomas
Silverman, Julius


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Magee, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marks, Kenneth
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow. Shettles'n)
Snape, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Soley, Clive


Ginsberg, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Spearing, Nigel


Gourlay, Harry
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Spriggs, Leslie


Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maxton, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W lsies)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Stoddart, David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stott, Roger


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Straw, Jack


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Haynes, Frank
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Tilley, John


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Home Robertson, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Torney, Tom


Homewood, William
Newens, Stanley
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Horam, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Neill, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkins, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Weetch, Ken


Janner, Hon Greville
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Park, George



John, Brynmor
Parker, John
Welsh, Michael


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pavitt, Laurie
White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Whitlock, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wigley, Dafydd


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Kerr, Russell
Race, Reg
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Kilfedder, James A.
Radice, Giles
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Richardson, Jo
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lambie, David
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Winnick, David


Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Woodall, Alec


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Leighton, Ronald
Robertson, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Wright, Sheila


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Young, David (Bolton East)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rooker, J. W.



Litherland, Robert
Roper, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. George Morton.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee

1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 12 May.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 12 May may continue until 11 pm whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 13 May.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after Ten o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra lime on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private Business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the question that Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under


Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
 allotted day " means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
 the Bill " means the Social Security (No. 2) Bill;
 Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee " means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
 Resolution of the Business Committee " means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — PORT OF LONDON (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Mr. Richard Crawshaw in the Chair]

Clause 1

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR AND IN CONNECTION WITH MEASURES TAKEN BY PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move amendment No. I, in page 1, line 5, after ' (1) ', insert
' Subject to general cargo handling facilities being maintained in the Royal Docks '.
This amendment would make the payment of finance to the Port of London Authority conditional on the maintenance of general cargo handling facilities on the Royal docks. We believe that this amendment is crucial to the whole purpose of the Bill as we understand it and which we support. The proposition on which the Bill is based is fundamentally wrong in that it contends that a reduction of manpower by the PLA will, in itself and of itself, restore the authority to viability.
We believe that the financing of severance covered by the Bill should be related to the maintenance of the Royal docks. We believe that in practice the Bill will be used in that way and for that reason we support it. But that is not what the Bill says. I shall seek to persuade the Committee that there is everything to be gained and nothing to be lost by inserting within the Bill something which would ensure much wider support—support which would not embrace some of the reservations expressed on Second Reading.
It is wrong for the Minister to contend, as he did on Second Reading, that his responsibility relates only to a relatively narrow but important financial aspect of the PLA's operations. There is no doubt that the financial aspect is important, and there is no doubt that the Bill is necessary to deal with at least one Of the PLA's problems. But no one who has studied the situation of the PLA with any degree of political sensitivity or appreciation of the consequences of the success

or failure of that authority to those involved in the widest sense in shipping out of London, or in the development of the docklands or in the running of local authorities in that area, could contend that the issue underlying the Bill is merely a narrow financial one, or one which is of concern only to the PLA. This matter is of much wider concern. It concerns many hon. Members who are interested in ports policy and the development of London.
Therefore, it is our contention that the maintenance of the Royal docks and the cargo handling facilities there as specifically referred to in the amendment, is of crucial importance in terms of port policy as pursued by the Government and in terms of regional development in the South-East, to put it at its widest, or the regeneration of a part of London, to put it at its narrowest. It carries implications for jobs and the way that the local authority discharges its duties and plans redevelopment in the area. There are also the social and environmental implications and the hopes and aspirations of many people who are looking for a correct decision by the House on the future of the London docklands.
I should like to tackle the argument for making a specific reference to the Royals in the Bill under two simple headings. The first is the effect on ports policy that springs, in part, from the tremendous role played by the London docks in the movement of conventional cargo into this country. Inward conventional cargo into London in 1978, according to a survey by the National Ports Council, was 4,317,000 tonnes. London had more inward conventional cargo than Liverpool, Grimsby, Imming-ham, the Forth, Felixstowe, Manchester, Southampton, Tees and Hartlepool put together. The effect of new technology on cargo handling has left London in a preeminent position in terms of total conventional cargo coming into the country.
Many ports have developed facilities to a greater degree than London, but London is left with an outstanding role in conventional cargo handling. This has a greater impact in the upper docks, especially the Royal docks, than further down river, at Tilbury, for example, that is now a Port of London Authority responsibility and deals with container and other types of bulk traffic.
It is impossible to carry out the purpose of the Bill and to make the Port of London Authority viable on any other basis than by sustaining the Royal docks. If the Royal docks were to close—it is known that India and Millwall, except for a few existing tenants, are to be virtually closed—it would not be possible to sustain existing cargoes and existing customer contracts, let alone expand and develop cargoes that are necessary for the Port of London to operate on a viable basis. According to present plans, based, by the Port of London, on the assumption that the Royals will continue, some customers will be transferred from India and Millwall to the Royals and some to Tilbury.
The Minister has a duty to say whether there is any condition other than that in the amendment on which he can see this Bill operating. There is no financial provision, as I understand the Bill, that would permit the expansion of Tilbury, even if that were physically possible, which I question. There is not the financial provision to bring about the expansion of Tilbury to take all the existing customers who would move from India and Millwall and certainly not the existing customers of the Royals as well.
If we are to try to make sense—I admit it is difficult—of the financial arrangements in the Bill, we must insist that one of its conditions is that there shall be provision in the Royal docks for handling conventional cargoes. The Royal docks have facilities for considerable expansion. I believe that only about 16 of the 54 berths are currently in use. Without any substantial capital expenditure, there could be the expansion of cargo handling that we want to see within the PLA. That is the aspect of the amendment that hinges on ports policy.
There could be no closing of the Royal docks unless a decision were taken that, intentionally or otherwise, would change the whole balance of conventional cargo handling as currently defined by the National Ports Council. The definition used by the council is useful. It is new to me. It divides operations from ship to shore between those that are labour-intensive and those that are capital-intensive.
The second issue raised by the amendment is the broad political question of the

social effect of withdrawal from the upper docks. If, as I expect, the Minister accepts that the Royal docks are one area where potential exists for carrying on conventional cargo handling and that conventional cargoes involve labour-intensive handling, jobs can be maintained in the upper docks. That would be impossible if the Royals were closed. Given, the room that exists for expansion, there is an opportunity for increased cargoes that the PLA, in its strategic plan, states are essential in plotting a course to viability.
I deeply regret that the Minister of Transport is not present, because we are discussing a fundamental issue of the Bill. I say that with no disrespect to the Parliamentary Secretary. If the Minister believes that there is any other way of dealing with the problem to which this Bill is addressed, he should say so. If he accepts that there is no other way, he should accept the amendment.
It is only fair to those affected by the Bill that they should know whether or not the House is discussing the sanctioning of expenditure of public money for the purpose of sustaining the Royals and an upper dock presence of the PLA and for maintaining a vital aspect of ports policy in conventional cargo handling. We cannot accept that the Government's only role is to say how much money should be available to the PLA. The issue is much wider than that. It is a major political issue. The Minister cannot shelter behind the argument that there are inadequate financial criteria. He cannot be a Pontius Pilate. He is not dealing with the legal jurisdiction of an occupied territory. He is dealing with ports policy, shipping practices and local authority development plans for a part of London which has suffered grievously as a result of the change in dock practices. He is dealing with the social future of the people who live in the docklands area.
He should, therefore, make it clear whether he will accept the amendment as being the only basis on which the Bill can work, or whether he intends to spell out a serious alternative which will lead to implementation of the proposition written into the long title—to make the PLA a profitable organisation.

Mr. Peter Shore: My right hon. Friend the Member for


Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has already made a cogent case for the amendment. I support him. It is plain to all who have studied the Bill that it is a narrow measure in terms of what it seeks to do. At the same time it is wide in the scope that it gives to the PLA to achieve its objective. All that the Bill sets out to do is to restore profitability and to give such financial assistance for the reduction in manpower as will bring that about. It is totally unconditional. It is not conditional upon the future operation of the docks or the port of London as a whole. It is not conditional upon the effects that the PLA's policies might have on the wide problems of employment in the East End communities which are so greatly affected by PLA decisions.
It is therefore necessary to insert into the Bill at least one objective. That is what the amendment seeks to do. The objective is to retain at least the upper dock presence by keeping open for general cargo use the Royal docks. That is a modest objective. In itself the maintenance of the Royals is a marked retreat from the position taken up by the previous Government, who made their financial assistance conditional upon the maintenance of the Royal and West India docks. The Labour Government urged upon the PLA what was called the " concentration option ". That has been abandoned.
Let us be clear about what that involves. It means the closure of one of the major upper docks. The Government, or the Government and the PLA together, have " yo-yoed " for years about their preference between the Royal and West India docks. In the five-year feasibility study which the PLA produced last summer preference was shown for the West India dock. However, that preference has been abandoned, not for the first time. We seek to support the modest proposal to keep open at least one of the two great upper docks and to insist that that is a condition for the receipt of the moneys which the Bill provides. The amendment is crucial.
8.15 pm
By inserting the words in the amendment we shall give a strong commitment to maintain part of the upper docks in the form of the Royals. Without the words there is no commitment to main-

tain any part of the upper docks. The phsychological effect of that must be considered. It will have an effect on the registered dock workers and other port employees and on the management of the PLA. There is a strong feeling along the River Thames that the PLA is not strongly committed to retaining the Royals and to making a go of that part of the upper dock system. That strong feeling might be unjustified but it is there.
The preferences and views of the PLA have swung from one dock to another and from one strategy to another over the years. Nobody can be surprised that strong doubts exist about the commitment of management to maintaining and making a success of the Royals. We all know how the traffic has changed, how the size of ships and cargo handling methods have changed. However, conventional cargo or conventional and container mixed cargo will still be brought in ships to Britain in substantial quantities. There is no doubt that the Royal group, if it is run efficiently, can handle sensibly and profitably substantial cargoes. It is a major facility for the port of London. The Royal and West India docks have substantial advantages in terms of where they are placed and the services that they can provide to customers—and there are many—and consumers in greater London. That is the first strong reason why the amendment should be accepted.
My second reason relates to the dockland communities which are involved in employment and activity associated with the upper docks. The Labour Government tried to energise and create a new inner city policy. We tried particularly had in the dockland area. We knew about that area's decline and we were anxious about it. A range of measures were taken to give it better prospects. The pace at which such action can be taken must be judged.
A considerable amount of additional employment is coming to the dockland area and new infrastructure will help to attract more industry, but the pace at which that can be done must be judged. If the dockland area suffered the closure of the upper docks system in the next two to four years that would be a major blow to the efforts to revive the area through inner city policy. That is an important point.
As I looked at the background to this debate, I noted that the Minister of Transport and others had prayed in aid the Price Waterhouse report as authority for a number of the things they are doing. I was struck when I examined the last paragraph on page 2 of the report at the precise point which is made. The report says:
 In reviewing the PLA's general strategy there are wider issues than the detailed financial analysis. These wider issues, which we have not considered, include the relationship to the Port of London and the PLA to Dockland's redevelopment, the economic role of the PLA, competition policy between ports and the social consequences of the various courses of action.
Not a word of that is reflected in the Bill. Nor is it reflected in the speeches that were made on Second Reading by the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary, who is here today. Clearly, that report is of great importance to the community when we consider not only the number of jobs directly involved—employment in the upper docks—but the number of jobs linked with it. Some studies have been made—I would not claim that they are definitive—of the linkages between the maintenance of the West India dock and associated industry.
I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that we are speaking of about three to four supporting, or connected, jobs for every job directly involved in the docks themselves. It would be a terrible setback if there were to be a further closure in the upper dock area. I can tell the House that it is bad enough with the West India dock. Therefore, I hope for that second reason—connected with inner city policy and dockland policy and revival in particular—that this amendment will be accepted.
My last reason for urging this course is one that might, perhaps, appeal to the Government. I am not sure that the point has yet been entirely taken by them. In the report from which I have quoted a series of options are examined, including what is called the " radical " option. That option is the one under which the Royal group of docks—the whole of the upper docks—would be closed. Hon. Members, if they have their papers with them, will know that not only would another 2,000 jobs be lost if the Royal docks were to close, but the

Government severance grants would go up from the £35 million allowed for in the Bill to no less than £59 million.
Therefore, unless the Bill is nonsense, the " radical " option has to be ruled out—unless the Minister is about to tell us that he will be prepared to come forward with further sums. If that is the case, I do not see how there can be any objection to inserting the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness. I therefore urge the amendment upon the House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Royal docks lie entirely within my constituency and entirely within the borough of Newham. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) has outlined in vivid terms the important part that the upper docks have played in the social, economic and industrial heritage of East London.
In Committee we discussed the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which includes a provision for the establishment of an urban development corporation. Under that provision it is the desire of the Government, as it is the desire of the whole House, to ensure that the areas of so-called deprivation, of inner city need, are given what the Government in Committee called regeneration—the object of which is no different from ours.
I believe that the purposes on which everybody is agreed can best be achieved by the legislation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar in the Inner Urban Areas Act and the partnership arrangements—and the committees under it—that that Act gave to those areas. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in that direction.
It was not merely a matter of keeping open a national and community asset. I shall come to that issue in a moment. There was also the need to sustain the social network and the traditional community life of an inner urban area, which alone make it attractive, and which alone will enable it to be regenerated in the way in which we are all agreed.
The Royal docks are huge. Those who talk about dockland and take up the parrot cry that the docks are too small and that ships are not getting up the river do not, perhaps, realise that the Royal docks are more than 2 miles long.


The Royal Victoria dock alone is 1 mile long, and there are 10 miles of deep water quays. I do not mean 10 miles of river; I mean 10 miles of quay space, alongside which ships drawing up to 45 ft. of water can be moored. That is within 5 miles of Tower Bridge.
I referred to the river highway on Second Reading, and I shall, therefore, not spell it out again. That highway is wider and deeper than the Panama Canal, yet we frequently hear it said that these facilities are, apparently, outdated. Those facilities include, at their entrance, a lock that is 800 ft. long and 100 ft. wide and can take ships up to 45 ft. deep at high tide. There is also a dry dock—one of the second biggest in South-East England—with a length of 750 ft., which is only a few feet shorter than the only remaining dry dock, that at Tilbury.
I believe, therefore, that if the PLA decides, in response to purely financial restraints, that it is in its short-term internal accounting interest to close the Royal docks we do away with assets that are of national as well as major local and regional significance.
I do not believe that such a closure would be in the long-term interests of anyone. I do not say—I am the last person to suggest it—that the conventional cargo activities of the Royal docks can continue as they did until about 10 years ago. It is clear that there is a new phase in the potential for all the upper docks, and I include the West India and Millwall docks, which are in my right hon. Friend's constituency. I include them because I believe that what could apply to the Royal docks could possibly apply to those docks also.
The Royal docks are significant, too, in that they had a system of labour for port activity that marked them out as separate from the West India docks. Until recently most of the labour on ships—the stevedoring labour, to which I shall return in a later contribution, if I catch the Chairman's eye, in relation to the inquiry—was employed not by the PLA but by shipping companies direct, which had permanent dock workers related to one line or another, or by labour contractors. All those have now disappeared, and disappeared rapidly. So we are confronted with new opportunities in these considerable physical assets.
8.30 pm
The first suggestion that I make concerns the relationship of the PLA with its tenants. The West India docks, contrary to what the newspapers have said, and contrary to inaccurate phrases in the House, will not be closed. The West India docks are to be opened for the use of PLA tenants, particularly Montague Meyer, and there are to be facilities for the wine terminal and for the grain elevators, if they wish them.
All that the PLA is doing—I say " all ", but it is significant for the West India docks—is withdrawing its cargo operations. In other words, the cargo handling activities of the PLA, as a supplier of dock labour, are to be withdrawn from the West India docks. But that does not mean that the West India docks do not have a future role to fulfil in some form or other, particularly in relation to current and future tenants.
This is where I come back to the Royal docks. The Royal docks have tenants connected with the grain trade, and there is a considerable throughput. A timber firm, which came out of the Surrey docks and went there, is happy to remain, and its labour relations are excellent. There is no reason why similar ships which go to those installations should not go to further tenants' berths if they were made available in the Royal docks, just as they ought to be made available in the West India docks.
On Second Reading I asked about the future of the West India docks. Why does not the PLA bring in tenants? I suppose that I should have written formally to the PLA and asked that question. I have had no reply. Nor have I had a reply from the Government Front Bench. I suggest that it would be possible to extend the tenancy arrangements inside the Royal docks so that some form of dock-related activity could continue.
I have mentioned the grain terminals and the timber yard. Recently there has been a new tenant on the south side of the King George V dock—a contractor involved in gathering together cargoes of a particularly specialised nature. He is a forwarding agent who employs dock labour and is using road transport to bring goods in and out of of the sheds on the south side of the King George V dock. The agreement that that tenant has with the PLA—I


am speaking from hearsay, although I am fairly sure it is right—precludes him from bringing in ships or barges to handle those goods. That relates to a technical matter concerning the organisation of dock labour and of shipping on the Thames. That is another reason why we should have an inquiry into this matter. But there is a tenancy, which has come into being in the last few months, which relies entirely on road transport.
There are considerable warehousing facilities in the Royal Victoria docks which largely rely on road transport. Therefore, there is a potential for the continued use of water transport in ships of all sizes in the Royal docks, particularly in the Royal Victoria and the King George V docks on the south side.
Another cry that we often hear is that containers have to be handled at Tilbury because the upper docks are too small or too far away to be an economic proposition. But that is just not true. In the PLA annual report for 1978 we read that no fewer than 52,000 containers had been handled at the non-specialised container berths—a very significant number. That was an increase over the previous year.
The biggest irony of all in this respect is that the Victoria deep water terminal—which must be distinguished from the Victoria dock—which is a wharf on the river upstream of the entrance both to the Royal and West India docks, is a successful container terminal. But, generally speaking, the PLA has to date made little or no effort to provide facilities for container operations in either the West India or the Royal docks.
Indeed, there was a scheme—perhaps we should return to it on a later group of amendments—for a crane to be built in the West India docks, or purchased and put there, to deal with containers and the coming type of combi-ship, carrying a combination of containers and conventional cargo. That has had an unhappy history, but there is no reason why that should not have gone into the Royals, or why such an operation should not continue in the future. Yet the fact that the PLA has not apparently been active in this way has meant that there is suspicion, and that, rightly or wrongly, people are saying that the PLA is not

serious about keeping the Royal docks open.
I know that a letter was sent by the PLA two or three months ago saying that it had no intention of closing the Royal docks—rumours were going around East London that it would do so—and I accept that. However, what is wanted by the community in East London is some sign of good faith that the PLA will really use the undoubted assets of this enormous enclosed group of docks. When people come from the Continent and see them, they say "Why on earth are you not using them? You must be mad. You have the best river highway into, perhaps, any capital city in Europe, and you appear not to be using it."
I believe not only that there is a case for the PLA to answer but that the Government have a duty, to East London in particular and to London and the nation in general, to say " These facilities are of such a nature and such potential that they should not be closed", and, on the other hand, to investigate their future use for some of the purposes that I have outlined. The Government may well say—and I see the Parliamentary Secretary getting ready—" Hard luck. The figures show that they make a loss. Yes, it may be that the King George V dock was opened in 1923 by King George V himself and the ' Mauretania ' passed through the entrance lock in 1939 "—as, indeed, it did—"but they make a loss, so we cannot put this duty on the PLA."
I want to pay tribute to the open figures which Sir John Cuckney, the former chairman of the PLA—I am sure that Mr. Victor Page will continue in the tradition—made available at the time to those of us who were interested. For the purposes of evidence before a Select Committee in February 1979, Sir John kindly made available to me the provisional figures for the Royal docks in 1978. They showed that the revenue for those docks—it was quite considerable, bearing in mind that we are told that no ships come up—was £20 million. Payroll costs were about the same. In addition to the payroll costs for cargo handling, there were supplies and services, depreciation, internal services, lock, police and catering. The PLA said that the internal services for the Royal docks in 1978 came to £2·3 million for lock, police and catering. That sounds a bit


steep. Some may like to ask questions about that later. But the PLA calculated that there was an operating loss on the Royal docks for that year of £4·8 million and for the Millwall docks—that is, India and Millwall of £4.3 million.
I shall accept those figures for the moment, although as I have indicated, all sorts of questions could be asked about the overheads and whether ships were being unnecessarily turned away. Again, there have been spates of rumours throughout East London about that. But the most important point is that I also asked what was the cost of the surplus labour attributed to the Royal docks or, rather, attributed to the upper docks. Sir John Cuckney told me that £4 million of surplus labour costs was included in those losses in 1978. I admit that a high proportion of the excess labour cost was related to conventional cargo. That is what the Bill is about. It is saving the operators, virtually all of whom are private contractors, whose labour went to the PLA by default. On the PLA's figure of an operating loss of about £9 million on the upper docks in 1978, £4 million—about half the loss—was attributable to the surplus of labour—a situation that the Bill is intended to rectify.
If the Minister will not accept the obligation that was entered into by the previous Government, he must accept that there is room for investigation of all the matters that I have outlined. However, I should prefer the docks to be kept open, and that is why I support the amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I begin by reassuring the Committee and particularly the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that the Government are fully aware of the wider implications for East London of the future of the PLA. The Government's commitment to the aim of inner city revival is no less than that of their predecessors, though our methods of achieving that aim are different and controversial.
The Bill referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, South contains provisions that will allow urban development corporations to be set up, and docklands has been clearly identified as one of the first problem areas to which the new

policy will be directed when Parliament has authorised it and the machinery is in hand.
In looking at the problems of East London and the substantial problems of dockland, we must realise that a great deal depends on the future of the PLA and great hopes are placed on the future of the authority in that area. We have to look at the problem not only from a financial point of view but with an appreciation of the social, employment and other implications for a part of London that is at present desperately hard hit.
The basis of the policy of the Bill towards the PLA as a whole and the Royal docks in particular is that the Government are fully sympathetic to the efforts being made by the PLA and all who work for it to try to secure a future for the Royal docks and the closed docks.
There is a determination to try to cure the problems of the PLA and to secure a future for the Royal docks, The Government wish those efforts success, but in the end they will depend on the efforts made by the PLA and its work force and by its ability to attract traffic back into the docks.
In the Bill, the Government are discharging their obligations, which were inherited in part from the previous Government, and playing their part financially to put the PLA into a position where it can, if it is successful, return to viability and competitiveness and secure a future for all its activities, including, we all hope, the Royal Docks.
It is said that the Bill is based on an assumption that the only problems afflicting the PLA are those of excess manpower. No one who looks at the PLA or the problems of any other major port—and I see hon. Members from Merseyside waiting for debates on later amendments —believes that the only reason for the present condition of our major traditional ports is that they have excess manpower. Many other circumstances have intervened.
The shipping trade has gone through uncertain and difficult times and is badly affected whenever the economy goes into recession. Most important, there has been a transformation over the past 10 or 20 years in the way in which shipping traffic is handled in our docks and a massive turnover from traditional labour-intensive


ways of handling cargo to containerisation and much more capital-intensive methods.
8.45 pm
There are further difficulties in the case of the PLA. There has been generally a shift away from closed docks to newer facilities nearer the mouths of estuaries, including, within the PLA's own area, a shift away from the closed docks to Tilbury, where the journey times are less. There have also been very considerable problems of efficiency and working practices in the Port of London, which have been a considerable obstacle to attracting traffic. All those problems must be dealt with. Many factors have to go in favour of the ports, and the Port of London in particular, if they are to get out of their present troubles.
Nevertheless, when all that has been said, there is no doubt that in the case of the Port of London the nub of the problem is its excessive manpower and the outdated working practices by which that manpower is employed.
The Port of London is by far the biggest of our traditional cargo-handling ports. The figures were quite rightly cited by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). It was because it was the biggest traditional port that it was so much more affected by the change in technology and the advent of containerisation. It has had to change very dramatically, but the fact remains that, as the Price Waterhouse report is only the last survey to bring out, the nub of the problem now is that they still have too much manpower, both registered dock workers and other staff, to handle the traffic they are likely to handle, and the working practices still have to be revised to make the port more attractive to potential customers.
That is the background against which we are working and within that background we have inherited a certain financial commitment to assist the PLA to cope with the next stage of change—a commitment that we have honoured in full and indeed have slightly updated in the light of inflation and present circumstances.
This amendment proposes that, as a condition of the assistance that the Bill is now offering, general cargo-handling

facilities should be maintained in the Royal docks.
The policy of the Government, given this background and sympathetic understanding, is that the future of the Royal docks, as with every other facet of the Port of London's business, is for the PLA itself to decide. It is not a mattter for Government either to request the closure of the Royal docks or to make it a condition that they remain open. We have every confidence in the ability of management to handle decisions in the port. We realise that in the docks in particular those decisions are taken in close consultation with the trade unions.
We hope that all those in the Port of London Authority realise the commitment to change they must have in order to provide the prospect of a future for these closed docks. The matter is in their hands and there is no question of the Government at this or any other stage stepping in with a condition either that the Royal docks should close or that they should remain open. We very much hope that those involved in the PLA will make a success of their business in order to give the Royals a future.
Our role is to deal with the interim stage, during which we quite accept that it would be impossible for the PLA to maintain a steady and stable trading position for either the Royals or Tilbury unless some assistance were given. The financial assistance in this Bill is aimed at giving grants on severance exactly in line with, but slightly updated for inflation, those offered by the previous Government, and that money has already been committed. The main purpose of the Bill is to give financial assistance in dealing with the severance payments to men whose discharge is, unfortunately, necessary but whose severance payments could not conceivably be met by the PLA out of its present resources. While that severance is going on we are also offering support with commercial loans, and we have also introduced a new facility whereby the Government will be prepared to stand behind an overdraft.
All that is aimed at financing the PLA through a period within which it has to return to profitability and competitiveness by 1983. That aim of a return to viability—to use the awful jargon phrase


which is always used on these occasions—by 1983 is the PLA's own declared aim in its five-year plan.
The target is difficult, but it is perfectly possible to achieve it. We trust that the management and the work force are committed to doing so. They need this financial assistance in order to cope with the severance payments and to finance the business while the necessary rundown in manpower is taking place.
That alone will not save the management and work force. They also need during that period to make the necessary changes to their business to attract the traffic. One effect of reducing manpower should be to increase productivity. They also have to improve the working practices in the port and the port's efficiency. Only in that way will they attract the necessary traffic.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and the hon. Member for New-ham, South were right to emphasise the space in the inner docks, the capacity to handle additional cargo. But the point is that that cargo must be attracted into the Royal docks. The customers must be won in competition with other British docks, which are entitled to compete for the trade.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Is not the Minister really saying that within the narrow terms of the Bill the Government are prepared to provide taxpayers' money for severance payments rather than provide an equivalent amount of taxpayers' money to the Port of London Authority to reduce the numbers of those who might be made redundant? The hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to make severance payments. He is not prepared, as the amendment would allow, to permit the PLA to use taxpayers' money to make redundancies unnecessary, to make the docks more attractive, to bring more industry in. It is not a matter of principle. It is a matter of the Minister's judgment as against that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness.

Mr. Clarke: I repeat that the Government have taken up exactly the position of the previous Government, who reached the conclusion, on the same evidence, that there was no way in which the PLA's present manpower could be gainfully and securely employed in the Royal docks.

The future of the Royal docks, if they are to win one, must be in secure jobs for the work force. That means that the workers must be employed in a port that is manned at a proper level, using modern, efficient techniques to serve the traffic that can realistically be won.
There is no point in committing taxpayers' money, for what is supposed to be an interim period but will rapidly turn into an indefinite period, in an attempt to maintain employment, at the expense of the general public, for large numbers of men for whom there is no work conceivably available in the type of traditional cargo handling that has always been, and must be, the pattern of work in the upper docks.
What I am really asked is how far what the Government are saying, and what the previous Government and the PLA said, is a reassurance to those who work in the Royal docks that there is good faith, that there is something to aim at. Under its new chairman, the PLA has gone out of its way to emphasise that it is seeking a future for the upper docks as well as for Tilbury and down river.
The PLA's executive vice-chairman recently wrote to all PLA employees reiterating the authority's wish to make a success of the Royal docks. Following the recent unfortunate decision that was forced upon the authority to close its cargo-handling facilities at the India and Millwall docks, the authority will now be improving facilities at the Royal docks to deal with traffic directed there from the India and Millwall docks.
The PLA hopes to make a success of the Royals and to put them back into a secure position. The Government hope that it will be successful. As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar correctly identified, using the Price Water-house report, the basis of the Bill is that the finance being offered in it is the minimum cost to the taxpayer to secure viability by 1983 on the basis of a policy of closing the India and Millwall docks and perhaps not closing the Royals.
Page 14 of the Price Waterhouse report shows the possible costs of Government funding of the various options before the PLA. We are dealing with the figure given there of £35 million for what is called the modified transfer option—closing the India and Millwall docks and keeping the Royals open.
The alternative option, the radical option, so-called, which means closing all the upper docks—the Royals, the India and Millwall—would cost £59 million Government funding on Price Water-house figures. What has been chosen, given the discussions with the PLA, given the PLA five-year plan, given the work of Price Waterhouse, is what appears to the Government to be the cheapest option to the taxpayer consistent with achieving viability, on which everyone is determined, and that is the modified transfer option. We are, therefore, making the finance available to the PLA to pursue that modified option and, if it is successful in the management and operation of its business, it could reach viability with the sums of money before us.
That does not mean that there is any guarantee that it will succeed. I will not repeat all the other conditions that have to be fulfilled in the management and operation of the business before success can be guaranteed for the Royals. It may well be that if things go wrong, if co-operation is not forthcoming, if there is a breakdown in industrial relations, if trade does not respond to changes made in the port, problems will arise again with the Royals, but that is a matter very much within the PLA's hands.
This is the Government's commitment to the PLA. If this is not successful, although we have chosen the option preferred by PLA, and the option preferred by the Committee tonight, there can be no question of further moneys being forthcoming from the Government if at some stage after this matters go wrong and there is a question of reconsidering these options again. The PLA has accepted our cash limits and committed itself to trying to secure a future for the Royals and to ask for the co-operation of its work force, and it must be a matter for the PLA, with the good wishes of us all, to try to achieve that aim.
There is a suggestion that what I am saying is slipping back from what the previous Government did. The previous Government gave no more guarantee than we are giving to the future of the Royals. The financial basis of the Bill is precisely the policy of the previous Government. Indeed, a great deal of the money had already been committed by the previous

Government before we came to office. There is no substantial change of policy, and no substantial change in the position of the port vis-á-vis the Government.
A great deal turns on the interpretations now being put by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the statement of the then Secretary of State for Transport on 31 July 1978 when he announced his policy. I shall not quote extensively as I did on Second Reading, but he told the House then that he was:
 prepared to provide financial assistance towards severance costs for registered dock-workers and staff, on condition that the authority set in hand urgent measures, in cooperation with its trade unions, to secure the most rapid possible rundown of surplus manpower and on the understanding that no steps are taken towards the closure of the Royal Docks."—[Official Report, 31 July 1978; Vol. 955, c. 169.]
He emphasised that a rapid run down of manpower was required and that the Government's financial commitment was to finance that rundown of manpower. He had an understanding—it was an option at that stage before the Government—that the PLA would not close the Royal docks.
It seems to have been interpreted in these debates that there was some long-lasting commitment implied by that, and the nature of the policy which we inherited was that there was a guarantee that the PLA should continue to operate the upper docks indefinitely with a financial commitment forthcoming.
Perhaps it does not help to enter into semantics about the statement of 31 July and the difference between an understanding and a condition. The then Secretary of State dealt with a parliamentary question on his newly announced policy when he made quite clear what his statement meant. He was asked critical questions by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, his successor, about the position of the Royals. His second question was:
 is he now saying that there is a permanent future for the Royal docks? If so, is he aware that so far his answers in the House and outside give the clear impression that he himself does not believe that to be the case, so that this is simply a cynical device for getting past an election? 
The then Secretary of State dismissed the suggestion that there was any electioneering in his statement of August 1978.


Dealing with the question of the Royal docks, he said:
 As for the future, nobody can forecast the extent of world trade. Nobody can forecast the share of it coming to Britain which the PLA may secure. I should like the Port of London to have a viable, stable and prosperous future. But the future of the port lies with all who work in it, and they will decide whether the Royal docks and the other docks stay open for a matter of months, a matter of years or for a very long time ahead.
9 pm
That was the position on 2 August 1978, three days after the new policy was announced. The closure of the Royal docks was then deferred and a new financial opportunity was offered. That financial opportunity has been repeated and confirmed by the present Government, and it has been slightly improved, both for inflation and by backing the overdraft.
Because of the change in policy by the PLA, the Royal docks are still open, and an alternative option of closing India and Millwall docks has been chosen. Both sides of the Committee are united in wishing the PLA success in securing the Royal docks. I can do not better than to repeat the words of the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers):
 The future of the port lies with all who work in it, and they will decide whether the Royal docks and the other docks stay open for a matter of months, a matter of years or for a very long time ahead."—[Official Report, 2 August 1978; Vol. 955, c. 746]
It is not possible for this Government to give a guarantee that the Royal docks will remain open—as it was not possible for the previous Government to do so. We hope and believe that we give a realistic possibility that they will remain open, and we hope that the PLA responds and secures the traffic necessary to secure the future of those people who work in the Royal docks.

Mr. John Prescott: The Parliamentary Secretary has shown to the House tonight that he is fully aware of the social implications of a collapse of the Royal docks or of the further deterioration of the Port of London Authority, but that he is not prepared to use port policy as a means of alleviating that. Labour Members have already said that a national ports authority is an essential instrument by which a national ports plan is implemented—and it was not a Socialist who

advocated it. Lord Rochdale advocated it in 1963. We shall deal with its ramifications later in the debate—particularly the National Ports Council, which was the Tory Party's response to a national ports authority.
The Parliamentary Secretary has also shown a lack of understanding of the development of port policy. I have some sympathy with him, to the extent that it has been an industry which has been in considerable turmoil over the last two decades. Having worked in it, and having a seafaring background, I have a familiarity with the industry that may give me a certain advantage over the specialist advice that the Parliamentary Secretary no doubt receives.
The Parliamentary Secretary tends to believe that, somehow, trade is solely determined by price. Many other factors determine the trade patterns for our ports. The geographical location of a port is clearly an important factor. The switch of our trade to the east is clearly evident in all our port performances. Ports such as Liverpool, London and other down-estuary ports are at a disadvantage compared with those immediately opposite the Continent, such as Felixstowe and, to a certain extent, Hull. That pattern is clearly shown in the numerous reports on why ports differ from one area to another. It is not necessarily because of a lack of investment or because of a price that is determined solely by labour costs. The port of Tilbury is pointed to as a success for the Port of London Authority, but that port has financial difficulties, and it is important for the Parliamentary Secretary to understand why.
The massive investments called for and encouraged by the State in that area were put into containerisation. The shipowners moved from the London area to Southampton, and, for a number of reasons, they are now being encouraged to move to Felixstowe. We have an over-capacity in investment in containerisation equipment. If it is not fully utilised, it has an adverse effect on the cost structure of the port. Those are the factors that determine trade outflow, and to a certain extent it may be determined by separate contracts of agreement by shipowners who can play one port off against another. The ports that are facing those difficulties are desperate to obtain


trade. They sometimes choose to get trade at a price that is far lower than that dictated by good commercial sense. The factors that I have mentioned have created a number of financial problems for our ports.
What was the Labour Government's position on the provision of an upper docks facility? The Minister responsible at that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers), referred to different time limits. There can be no doubt that the Port of London Authority said that it would close the Royal docks. That was seen as a solution to the financial difficulties of the authority, which was facing bankruptcy; hence the reason for the financial arrangements of 1978.
The condition of the then Labour Government was that the money should be used for manpower reductions. It is admitted in the joint union report that there is room for improvement in that area, although it observes, as did Price Waterhouse, that between 1966 and 1978 the labour force of registered dock workers declined from 25,000 to 8,000. That is a tremendous reduction by anybody's standards.
My right hon. Friend argued that the then Government were not prepared to accept the consequences of the closure of the upper docks. That led to Sir John Cuckney's concentrated alternative. That proposed a certain concentration in the upper, Millwall and India docks and a certain concentration in the Royal group of docks. The Labour Government intervened actively. The Government made it a condition, albeit for only a few months, or a few years, that there should not be a closure of the upper docks' capacity in view of the consequences that would flow. It may be argued that over five years trade had declined to such an extent that the capacity could not be maintained. However, that is not an argument to undermine the Labour Government's position—namely, the expression of a preference that there should be the maintenance of an upper docks' capacity. That does not seem to be in doubt, although there would be some argument about how long that would mean and what it would mean in practice. The fact remains that the Labour Government made a condition before issuing money. That

condition applied largely to manpower reductions plus loans to assist in the development of commercial activity. That may be said to be the basis of the Bill.
There is a basic insecurity felt by the docks' labour force that is reflected in the amendment. There has been a massive decline in the labour force, and all the time different plans have been emerging. The Port of London Authority has prepared five different plans within 14 months. They have all presented different arguments, fresh evidence and different conclusions. At one stage it was closing the Royals. The next stage saw it closing the uppers. It then turned its attention elsewhere. That background does not instil confidence.
There have been five different plans in five years for the upper docks alone. That does not include the Maplin development, the development at Tilbury, the transfer arguments, the concentration arguments and other radical plans that have been produced by accountants. I shall refer to the Waterhouse-Fowler plan in due course. There has been considerable insecurity. That has been brought about by the various plans. That has led to confusion and considerable change. The inevitable result is that the docks have moved further and further downstream. That is what causes concern and that is why the Opposition say through the amendment that at some stage the Government should say " Stop ". Stability must be brought to the industry to encourage the best possible atmosphere, to bring about the further changes that have the agreement of all parties and to secure a further reduction in manpower.
I am sorry that the Minister could not be here to deal with the amendment regarding the Royal docks. The workers are further concerned by a matter arising from a statement of his, which I mentioned on Second Reading. When he made the statement the Minister was in opposition. People can read the Price Waterhouse report and the Minister's statements to the effect that we must all stand on our own feet, Government would not intervene and commercial policy would be the determining factor. If the policy is left solely to commercial pressure, the workers will probably interpret the closure of the upper docks—Millwall and India—as a step towards


the closure of the Royals. They will believe that if they co-operate in this proposal they will be faced with similar arguments in a few months' time, and time is limited due to the cash limits. They will believe, that, after that short period has elapsed, they will be asked to co-operate in the closure of the Royal docks.
On 8 May 1978 the Minister questioned my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport about the financial agreement being brought forward for the Port of London Authority. He said:
 Do the Government accept the view of the chairman of the PLA that over the coming months the Port of London will have to be slimmed down substantially, but that if that is done there is no reason why the port, based on Tilbury, should not prosper?"—[Official Report, 8 May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 772.]
We try to understand what is in the Minister's mind when he argues for cash limits and assistance. If it is a slimmed-down version of the docks based on Tilburay, I am bound to tell him that that will cause considerable resentment and a great deal of trouble in the docks. It will create the wrong atmosphere for the maximum co-operation that will be needed even for this half-way solution, with the Royal docks run in the manner expressed

by the management and the maintenance of Tilbury. All that must be taken into account, and also the financial restructuring, which I shall deal with later.

Surely the Minister does not really believe that the Bill does not affect policy. The chairman of the British Transport Docks Board certainly feels that it does. He feels that giving subsidies to the Port of London Authority will undermine BTBD ports such as Southampton. Presumably the commercial solution would be to allow the PLA to collapse, as in 1978. The commercial solution would be simply Tilbury, in the way that the Tory Government dealt with the Merseyside development in 1972. That is the reality of a commercial policy. I do not advocate such a policy, but by providing the money, albeit by endorsing what the Labour Government started, the Bill is a policy. It is a policy to retain the London authority partly in its present form. It is a more positive policy than a commercial solution. The policy should be to maintain a presence in the upper docks, and we shall therefore press our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 83, Noes 130.

Division No. 283]
AYES
[9.15 pm


Alton, David
Forrester, John
Park, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foulkes, George
Parker, John


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement
Parry, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhallgon, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Homewood, William
Richardson, Jc


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Hon Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Carmichael, Nell
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rooker, J. W.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ronald
Soley, Clive


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Litherland, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sloddart, David


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Dobson, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dormand, Jack
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Michael


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Winnick, David


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Eastham, Kan
Morton, George



English, Michael
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Evans, John (Newton)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Ted Graham and


Ford, Ben
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Parris, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan
Patten, John (Oxford)


Ancram, Michael
Gow, Ian
Pattie, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Greenway, Harry
Pawsey, James


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Pollock, Alexander


Bell, Sir Ronald
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Porter, George


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hannam, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hawkins, Paul
Proctor, K. Harvey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawksley, Warren
Renton, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Henderson, Barry
Rhodes James, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Blackburn, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bright, Graham
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Brinton, Tim
Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Brotherton, Michael
Lang, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lee, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stradling Thomas, J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Bulmer, Esmond
Loveridge, John
Tebbit, Norman


Burden, F. A.
Lyell, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Macfarlane, Neil
Thompson, Donald


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
MacGregor, John
Thornton Malcolm


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Viggers, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Major, John
Waddington, David


Chapman, Sydney
Marlow, Tony
Wakeham, John


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Waldegrave, Hon William


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Cockeram, Eric
Meyer, Sir Anthony



Colvin, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Wall, Patrick


Cope, John
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Waller, Gary


Costain, A. P.
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Ward, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Montgomery, Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Critchley, Julian
Morgan, Geraint
Watson, John


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wheeler, John


Dover, Denshore
Mudd, David
Wilkinson, John


Dunlop, John
Myles, David
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Nelson, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Eggar, Timothy
Neubert, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Newton, Tony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Farr, John
Onslow, Cranley



Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Page, John (Harrow, West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Peter Brooke.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Ogden: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, leave out
with the consent of the Treasury'.

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 21, leave out:
'with the consent of the Treasury'.

Mr. Ogden: This is a proposition which should appeal to all hon. Members. A few moments ago in his winding-up speech on our earlier debate the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that the Bill had attracted the attention and interest of Merseyside Members on both sides of the Committee. It is not merely that we are interested in the possibilities of a later amendment. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton), who will no doubt explain his presence. We have exchanged a few words on this matter. We may not be in cahoots or in collaboration. We are marching perhaps in a parallel.
My purpose is to support my London colleagues in trying to improve the Bill within the narrow terms of the long title. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench were more successful in getting their amendments selected than I was in getting mine selected. I should not like to say that the reason is that they possess more skilful or more devious minds. On 17 April, the day after Second Reading, I placed on the Notice Paper seven amendments and one new clause, all of which were intended to support my hon. Friends. The sole survivor of those eight items, compiled with some burning of the midnight oil, are amendments Nos. 2 and 17 to leave out:
with the consent of the Treasury".
It is possible that, with consent, the Treasury has been trying to leave itself out. The Parliamentary Secretary is a competent Minister. I shall not spoil his chances of promotion above Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. and learned Gentleman is nice, helpful and charming within limits, but he has been left alone


to fight the good fight, or perhaps the bad fight, on the Government Front bench. Perhaps he can explain why the Minister of Transport, who is bringing forward a Bill entailing proposed expenditure of about £70 million—no small amount of money—is not able to be present.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As the Opposition Front Bench know, my right hon. Friend is addressing an important transport gathering elsewhere in London and is not able to be here. It is a longstanding commitment. My right hon. Friend will appear at a later stage of the debate. I apologise for his non-appearance and for the fact that he was not able to write to every hon. Member who might put in an appearance during the Committee stage. I speak, needless to say, in these debates with his full authority.

Mr. Ogden: I do not expect the Minister of Transport to write to every hon. Member. I want to keep Government expenditure down, but a mention might have been made of the reason for his absence. This is an important transport debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman has explained the situation, and we now await the end of the second act, or the interval, when the Minister of Transport will appear.
The Bill is presented and supported by a selection of Ministers—I almost said " a goodly company " but that applied only under the previous Government—whose names appear on the back of the Bill. One is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The only Treasury Minister that I can see—this is a technical point—is a Lords Commissioner of the Treasury. His role is not to speak on Treasury affairs, or to speak at all, but simply to see that hon. Members turn up at the right time. A Minister from the Department of Employment appeared but he since has departed, perhaps to address a meeting somewhere. As the part of the Bill to which I refer deals with Treasury consent, a more obvious interest by the Treasury would have been welcome. There may be among the advisers to the Parliamentary Secretary those who represent the Treasury. There may be among that unseen group, whom I shall not describe as angels, a Treasury mole. They do not look it. They look much too nice.
There are few Bills containing specific terms whereby
 The Minister of Transport may, with the consent of the Treasury ",
as stated in clause 1, give financial assistance. Again, under subsection (3), the Secretary of State has to get the consent of the Treasury. The purpose of my amendment is to obtain an explanation of why the Minister must have Treasury consent to hand over sums of money approved by Parliament for a purpose. That seems unnecessary. If the House is willing to support a Minister, we should not have to argue with a Treasury Minister. If there is to be a Treasury veto, the Bill should have been introduced as a Treasury Bill. All Ministers must obtain consent for, or at least not have opposition to, what they wish to do. We must be told why the words should be included in the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I do not often accuse the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) of inconsistency. However, this evening I detected notes of inconsistency in his argument. He claimed that he wished to improve the Bill's provisions for the benefit of the Port of London Authority. On Second Reading, I understood that he protested vehemently at assistance being given to the PLA unless that assistance was matched by assistance to the port of Liverpool. I understand that Merseyside Members, along with representatives of other port areas, object to assistance being given to the PLA because that will result in its being able to compete more favourably.

Mr. Ogden: My position is simple. I supported the proposition by the Labour Government to provide money for the PLA. I simply wanted something—not as much—for Merseyside. I do not want to block the Bill just because I cannot persuade the Government to give money to Merseyside.

The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that the Minister will not follow that argument too far.

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that that theme will be developed later.
I thought that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for


Employment against the excessive interference of Treasury Ministers. However, the hon. Member for West Derby asked why a Minister from the Treasury was not in the Chamber to vet what I say in reply to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot seek to exclude the Treasury from the Bill and demand the presence of a Treasury Minister to listen to what I say.
The Bill, and what is said by the Government about it, represents Government policy. The requirement for Treasury consent is virtually standard form in Bills which give Ministers power to provide financial assistance. The provision is well precedented in legislation proposed by Governments of both parties, particularly in the Industry Act, which gives wide powers to the Secretary of State for Industry to make grants. It is always regarded as a precaution to include in statutes which enable Ministers to dispense finance in that way an express statutory requirement that Treasury consent should be obtained.
I defend the inclusion of the words, but not through clenched teeth. The policy in the Bill is that of the whole Government, including the Treasury. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made clear at every stage the precise extent of the disbursements that he is prepared to make to the PLA, the nature of them and the basis on which further commitments will be made. As that is the policy of the Government, there is no reason to imagine that either present or future Treasury Ministers will suddenly retreat from that position. It is a perfectly prudent precaution that sponsoring and spending Department Ministers should have the consent of the Treasury before they make specific commitments of public funds towards the purpose of the Bill.
That precaution was not removed from legislation by the previous Government, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by removing it now. It does not have any novel or sinister implications for the policy of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Prescott: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 14, after 'may', insert

'after consultation with the National Ports Council'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 16, after ' may ' insert
'subject to the provisions of sub-section 2(a) below.'
No. 13, in page 1, line 20, at end insert:
' 2(a) Prior to the imposition by the Minister of any conditions, as described and empowered by Section 12 of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Minister to have regard to the evidence given to, and any conclusions reached by, any Committee or Enquiry, which it shall be his duty to establish, to consider and report on the best means of attaining the purposes of this Act. Any such Committee or Enquiry shall also consider and report to the Minister on:

(i) those parts of the statutory obligations and other operations of the Port of London Authority which in their opinion have a potential for making a commercial profit and the numbers of persons necessarily employed to attain such ends;
(ii) means of reducing the numbers of persons employed by the Port of London Authority in respect of their statutory obligations which they regard as not being generally capable of producing commercial profits; and
(iii) any other matter which in their opinion may assist to attain the objectives of this Act.'.

No. 15, in page 1, line 20, at end insert:
' (3) Any such conditions relating to management services and facilities referred to in subsection (2) above, shall be the subject of prior consultation by the Minister with any local authority, or any other body which may appear to him to be concerned with, or affected by, these conditions and who represent interests concerned with the operation, progress and profitability of the whole or any part of the Port of London, as defined in Schedule 1 of the Port of London Act 1968; or the conservation or navigation of the River Thames within the limits defined therein.'.
No. 16, in page 1, line 20, at end insert:
' (3) Any such assistance and associated conditions made by the Minister in respect of subsection (2) above shall be made by Order in Council and shall be published in the relevant Annual Report of the Port of London Authority.'.

Mr. Prescott: This amendment makes clear that any moneys provided under clause (2) should be granted only after consultation with the National Ports Council. The amendment is designed to make it a statutory requirement to consult


the National Ports Council before financial assistance is given under the section. That is in line with the present role of the National Ports Council as envisaged for it in the Harbours Act 1964. Its role is advisory. The function of the National Ports Council is to advise the Minister under certain conditions specified in sections 9 and 11.
In this amendment we are saying that any consideration of financial aid under the Bill should require consultation with the National Ports Council. The Government do not, clearly, disagree with that advisory function. They have received, and extensively quoted, the Price Waterhouse report. That firm of accountants was appointed by the previous Government and a second report was asked for by this Government. The report we have before us—and we are grateful for the insight it affords of an accountant's view of these problems—was commissioned by the present Minister of Transport.
In appointing the firm of Price Water-house the Labour Minister did not solely rely on the report the firm produced. He also requested a number of joint industrial studies which he had to take into account. We debated, in the previous amendment, the requirement upon a Labour Government to consider, for whatever period of time was necessary, the retention of an upper docks presence.
The Price Waterhouse report reveals an accountant's view of the problem. It exposes a financial problem and proposes a financial solution. The report does not take into account those social considerations which the Opposition believe are absolutely vital and which are bound up with the development of ports policy.
To be fair to the Price Waterhouse report, it makes clear on page 2:
 In reviewing the PLA's general strategy there are wider issues than the detailed financial analysis. These wider issues, which we have not considered, include the relationship to the Port of London and the PLA to Dockland's redevelopment, the economic role of the PLA, competition policy between ports and the social consequences of the various courses of action.
The report makes clear that its assessment is solely a financial assessment of a financial problem and properly gives a disclaimer as to those other considerations which we believe are extremely important and which should be considered before

making judgments in this context and in relation to the PLA.
We reject the policy that purely commercial criteria should govern decisions in this area. Indeed, that has been the view of previous Tory Governments. Those Governments have taken account of the report of the committee of inquiry into the major ports of Great Britain in 1963, which recommended an active interventionist policy in ports development and which advocated a ports plan. We discussed that in previous debates. The result of the recommendations of the Rochdale inquiry can be seen in the Harbours Act, 1964.
If one looks at the debate that took place in the House of Commons on 10 July 1963 one will see the remarkable statement by the then Tory Transport Minister, the late Lord Marples:
 We have already taken some action. We have set up this central agency which will be known as the National Ports Council.
The decision to assume central control of major port investment is fundamental to the whole issue. This is essential to ensure that particular developments fall into their proper place as components of the national plan. One of the chief functions of the National Ports Council will be to prepare the plan itself and also to encourage and advise port authorities on all works which appear to be in the national as well as the local interest. All that we have accepted.
To be fair to him, I should continue the quotation:
 That is in paragraph 218, which recommended that powers should be taken to direct ports to undertake schemes which were considered by the central planning agency to be essential. The Government are not prepared to go so far as this."—[Official Report, 10 July 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1251.]
The Government were prepared to see that a plan was formulated and the agency for intervention and recommendation was to be the National Ports Council. We endorse that as a philosophy, but we go much further. We believe in the National Ports Authority, again as outlined on Second Reading; but in this sense I seek only to make the point that the National Ports Council was the creation of Tory policy, based admittedly on Lord Rochdale's recommendations, and prevailed in the period which I now hear claimed as the 13 golden years of Tory rule, but a period, clearly, of active interventionist policy.
This type of policy is even more relevant today—17 years on. In our amendment we have called for the National Ports Council, as the existing institution, to be considered. As I have made clear, we feel that a body with no teeth, as is the role of the National Ports Council, is better replaced by a national ports authority, but, keeping within the institutions that we have, the National Ports Council is the one that is available.
I think that the whole Committee would want to give due credit to the National Ports Council for the valuable work that it has done. We are aware that the Government have stated that this body is to be abolished. Nevertheless, we note that the industry—representing road transportation, the ports industry and the shipping industry—is protesting at the proposed axing of the National Ports Council. Perhaps I was wrong to mention the ports industry as a ports authority. As the industry involved, it has actively campaigned for the axing of the National Ports Council. However, it is interesting to note that the industry's consumers are extremely concerned at the Government's proposals to axe this body. Indeed, one assumes that some role will have to be found for advisory ports policy in the Civil Service or in the appeals system. I do not think that the Minister has any such intention, but perhaps we can call on him to indicate what he intends to do with the appeals procedures as regards consumers who feel that they are being exploited by port authorities that dominate most of the port investment in a particular area.
Hull is a classic example, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, with the British Transport Docks Board and the fish ports of Hull and Grimsby dominated by a monopolist—in this case, a nationalised industry, which gives me no great comfort, except that the man who chairs the industry is no great Socialist, in common with the chairmen of other nationalised industries.
The point that we make is that all Governments have used the National Ports Council. For example, let us consider the valuable report that it made on the non-scheme ports, which was commissioned in 1972 by a Tory Government. Indeed, the Minister has referred

to the Liverpool crisis or has recommended a report into its present financial problems, of which we shall no doubt hear more later.
Price Waterhouse correctly refers to and credits the National Ports Council as receiving independent advice on the problems of the Port of London Authority. In this sense, the National Ports Council is an interventionist agency, albeit marginally. Nevertheless, it takes into account other criteria than those which have conditioned the thinking of the accountant in the financial solution that he has provided in his report. Nevertheless, as I said in the earlier debate, the Bill is, in a way, interventionist. It prevents the occurrence of a kind of bankruptcy by providing money. It provides money for severance. Indeed, the argument on Second Reading, for which there is some justification, is that London is being treated as if it were in a somewhat privileged position.
9.45 pm
I cannot see how the Government will be able to stand aside next year, for example, if one takes into account the present Liverpool claims that were made on Second Reading, and if one bears in mind the considerable financial difficulties that have been experienced this year, directly due to severance problems, and bearing in mind that another 700 people are being considered for possible redundancy in Liverpool, when the financial circumstances of the port of Liverpool may be similar next year. If the National Ports Council were to come to the conclusion that financial aid was needed from the State, in the way that we have treated the PLA, what would be the Government's position if the National Ports Council were to make that kind of recommendation on the same grounds?
The Government will not be able simply to stand aside and say that that was one exceptional case. They probably could say that if they wished, and they may well do so. However, they are, nevertheless, expressing a preference in regard to one port rather than another. The argument about non-intervention is that they are favourably disposed to neither one nor the other. I do not know whether another Liverpool-type solution would be sought, where help would be refused if the port got into financial difficulties, such as with


the bankruptcy of the port of London in 1972.
Therefore, in the amendment we advocate that the National Ports Council should be regarded as an important body for consideration of these sorts of problems—not only, as we have mentioned, problems of investment and of excess capacity and, as I have tried to indicate, problems of container investment—illustrating the Tilbury, Felixstowe, Southampton situation—but certainly taking into account the tremendous amount of social costs involved in these decisions.
Indeed, we could call in aid a further useful Tory precedent in regard to consultation with the National Ports Council. After the collapse of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, we saw the introduction of the Harbours (Loans) Act 1972, which was primarily designed to assist with problems of redeeming debt arising out of the lack of confidence in private investment in ports as a result of the Liverpool situation. As I understand it, that was an Act to grant loans to authorities to deal with these problems In the legislation of 1972 in regard to giving loans, there was the qualification that the National Ports Council should be consulted about such loans. But perhaps we are in a new era of non-intervention. Perhaps we are not even prepared to follow the traditional approach of previous Conservative and Labour Administrations in regard to financial help and investment considerations given to various port authorities.
It would certainly be a fair point to say that in this Bill it is not loans that we are giving to the PLA but direct grants—initiated admittedly by a Labour Government. There is no such requirement in the Bill, which has been produced as a Conservative Bill, for consultations about the giving of direct grants. That is distinctly different from the policy pursued in regard to loans under the Harbours (Loans) Act 1972. Therefore, we believe that these are indications of a certain intervention, and we are advocating that it should be a considered possibility in this legislation.
We would require that matters other than the financial solution should be considered. There have been numerous PLA reports, as we have mentioned, with conflicting conclusions. There have been other bodies calling for independent re-

views. The latest can be seen in the utterances of the South-East Economic Planning Council—which I presume is another body up for the chop. In one of its last press statements, of 5 March 1979, it was concerned about the future of London's upper docks and it recommended an independent study of London's future port needs. Indeed, my hon Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others have tabled an amendment calling for an inquiry by the House. There are increasing demands for assessments, other than those of the accountants and the PLA, of the problem.
Our amendment is the least that is necessary for a proper overall judgment to be taken, as has been the practice of previous Governments. The Government's policy, as reflected in the Bill and in statements, is not a port policy and falls short of the alternative of a national port authority recommended by the Rochdale committee and supported by the Opposition.

Mr. Spearing: This group of amendments is about inquiries, consultation and reports. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) and I have tabled four amendments, and I shall speak to those. I shall be as brief as possible and if my delivery is somewhat staccato, it will at least get the point home without taking too much time.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made clear that the purpose of the Bill is to restore financial profitability to the PLA. We said on Second Reading that we did not think that was possible, because we think that the problem is more deep-seated than the hon. and learned Gentleman supposes.

Amendment No. 8 is a paving amendment for No. 13, which makes it a duty of the Minister to set up an inquiry before any conditions are issued. It requires that the inquiry should report on the parts of the port's activities that are commercially profitable, together with those that are not, and the action that must be taken on both to achieve commercial profits or reduce manpower and to report on
 any other matter which in their opinion may assist to attain the objectives of this Act.

This matter is also related to the interests of the community. The East End community will be the big loser if something goes wrong. The port management


may have " top hat " pensions and the dock labour may have the docks scheme, but the community has nothing. It therefore has a right to call both groups to account for their actions.

I do not pretend that there is not some clearing up to be done in relation to labour, just as there is in terms of management, but I believe that that can be achieved only by opening out the issues and by having consultation and a full inquiry.

The Minister said earlier that there must be change. He said that the Government wanted efficiency and changes in working practices and that they wished the PLA success. If he really wants that, an inquiry on the lines that we have indicated in the amendment is necessary. If he indicates that that is what he wants, we shall believe that he seeks success, but if he says that there have been enough inquiries we shall doubt the sincerity of his good wishes.

There has been considerable criticism and questioning of the PLA management. I shall not go into details and repeat what has been said, but there has been long-term criticism. I am not referring to the chairman or necessarily to the board members, but questions have been asked about recruitment policy, key operational jobs and how people are selected to fill them, promotions policy, particularly internal promotions policy, the policy in respect of those with operational experience and so on.

On the question of labour practices, it is quite clear that there have been traditions which have been built up on the custom of putting in what amounted to a substitute ship's crew to discharge or stow cargo. The craft of the stevedore is not what it was at one time, but the customs and practices which have been built up over time remain, and I can well understand why, because in an operation such as the PLA's, unless we keep what we have when there is constant bargaining going on, we are giving away unnecessarily our side of the bargain.

That is why we have said to the Minister that unless the PLA shows some signs of faith and real initiative people cannot be expected to give up labour practices which may well be outdated in the light of an inquiry but which to them are

bargaining counters in relation to their livelihood and that of those who come after.

So the whole question of labour relations, of whites and blues, of this job or that job or of overside conditions or ship and quay space conditions, which are vital to the future success of the port, is related not just to labour but to management practices and attitudes.

My own local authority has, in relation to its own attitudes to the urban development corporation mentioned earlier, passed a resolution calling for an inquiry into the operations of the PLA. With the Royal docks as a major industrial asset of that authority, I think that the Minister ought to take account of the support for an inquiry of this sort which has been expressed by them.

I believe that there are very good reasons for this. The PLA, together with associated bodies, set up in 1975 a joint port trade development committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Frank Cousins. The committee published a report in 1976. It was published in Port of London, the PLA's own journal, and was entitled " A Vital First Step ". Very little has been heard of it since. One or two things have been talked about, but I believe that that committee set an example which ought to have been followed and I should like to know, as would a lot of people, why the PLA did not invest, as it were, in the activities of that committee. Maybe its conclusions were not entirely practical at that stage, but the drive and effort were not followed through.

There is the drama of the Nellan crane, a very expensive piece of equipment bought under a harbour dock loan, approved for the West India dock but, for various reasons—labour and management blame each other—not used. There ought to be an inquiry into that. It was public money, authorised, no doubt, on a recommendation from the National Ports Council, and no doubt sanctioned by the Treasury. Now the West India docks are to be closed. What were the circumstances, in detail, which led to the authorisation, which I supported, because it was recommended by the Cousins committee, and everybody wanted? They said it was a good thing and then that it could not be used. There ought to be an inquiry into that.

One of the matters which have faced us continually is the question of the labour force, and the Price Waterhouse report emphasised this. The rundown, of course, has been massive: 31,000 registered dock workers in 1955, 16,000 in 1970 and now, in 1980, the London Dock Labour Board tells me that there are 6,526. That is a massive rundown by any standard, but what is not generally realised is that of that 6,526 only 3,681 are employed by the PLA.

There are PLA staff as well. Many people will want to know the basis on which they have been employed recently. I tell the Minister and those who support the Bill, as we do, in principle that we cannot go on saying " We shall have profitability by shedding labour ", when there are only 3,681 registered men employed at present. The PLA always had small numbers. Those 31,000 were employed not by the PLA but by private wharfingers and private labour contractors.

I turn to the question of handling profits. We think of losses. Massive figures are quoted, but the PLA report for 1978 shows that in cargo handling, that very important area where the PLA is thought to be at a disadvantage—

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put.

That, at this day's sitting, the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Arthur Lewis(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, I thought that I heard only one voice shouting " No " when you put the Question. I understood that the Chair had to hear at least two voices. Perhaps you thought that there were two. I thought that there had to be two to provide two Tellers for the "Noes".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): The hon. Gentleman is not

correct in his assumption. If there is an objection to the motion, the Chair is entitled to put the matter to the test.
Later—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is the business motion. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To the contrary "No". The " Ayes " have it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PORT OF LONDON (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine in the Chair

Mr. Spearing: When the business motion was moved I was explaining that there were many reasons why there should be an inquiry, and I had reached the point of quoting cargo handling. The 1978 annual report stated that revenue from cargo handling was £41·993 million, whereas expenditure on handling was £41·871 million. That shows that it is almost in balance. Yet we are constantly told that cargo handling in the enclosed docks by the PLA is running at a considerable loss.
We are often told that the PLA is the port of London. The PLA annual report for 1978 shows that out of approximately 50 million tonnes of cargo in the port of London the PLA handles less than 10 million tonnes. The exact figures in the table are 8·2 million tonnes at PLA dock premises and 41 million tonnes river. That includes the PLA's bulk grain facilities in the river. We have to decide how much the PLA is a dock authority and a cargo-handling authority, and how much it is a conservancy authority, because £10 million comes in port dues.
Here the Touche Ross report, which the Minister dismissed rather airily, is of great significance. The PLA document on Touche Ross dated 1 June 1978 points out that there have been savings amounting to millions of pounds, and using Rotterdam conditions the PLA would be relieved of £296,000 on dredging, £2·7 million on rate costs and £6·2 million in police costs. On Hamburg conditions the rates relief would be about the same. I would expect the inquiry to look into


these matters. Touche Ross is not just to be dismissed in the way the Minister did earlier.
The proposals contained in the PLA five-year plan have been commented upon in the Price Waterhouse report, but throughout the plan the PLA appears to make no distinction between its statutory functions and the facilities for which it is responsible, and the overall projections of port activity. There are complex tables relating to base A suppositions, target suppositions, low estimates, base B and other such management techniques, but there is little appreciation of the fixed physical assets of the PLA and how each can either be used or changed to make the whole operation financially viable. The five-year plan needs to be looked at in its assumptions, in the way it is set out and the way in which an analysis is made.
Many of us on the Opposition Benches and in East London believe that there should be an inquiry into the PLA. The inquiry might make no recommendations, but as a result of the openness of an inquiry the sort of industrial relations which we want to achieve may stand a much better chance of being introduced, and suspicions may be blown away. Without such an inquiry, it is not possible, despite the open policy of the past, and I am sure the present, chairman of the PLA.
The other amendments relate to consultation. Amendment No. 15 requires the Minister to consult
 with any local authority, or any other body which may appear to him to be concerned with, or affected by, these conditions and who represent interests concerned with the operation, progress and profitability of the whole or any part of the Port of London, as defined in Schedule 1 of the Port of London Act 1968; or the conservation or navigation of the River Thames within the limits defined therein.
If the Minister will not accept an inquiry—I hope that he will accept it in broader terms, if not for the purposes of the Bill—he should consider his reply carefully in relation to amendment No. 15. Under the Act he has powers to make conditions. I have already explained the interest of local authorities, and he should consult them before making any conditions under this Bill.
The, private wharfingers handle far more traffic than the PLA. The PLA

believes that the future of the Port of London is more in wharves in the river than in some of its older installations. If the Port of London Authority believes that, and if four-fifths of the trade is already in the river in one form or another, the Minister should consult the wharfingers.
He should also consult the waterside manufacturers, many of whom have ships which come alongside the jetty and discharge raw material and pick up cargo direct from the manufacturers' facilities and base. Tate and Lyle, in my constituency, which handles 1 million tons of sugar, is a case in point. Therefore, the waterside manufacturers have an important part to play in the operations of the port of London.
The lighterage interests also have an important part to play in terms of mobility of cargo—transfer from warehouse to ship, ship to ship, and ship to shore, particularly in respect of bulk cargoes. Towage concerns are also involved. It is argued that it costs a great deal of money to bring ships up the river because of the use of tugs. There have been reductions in the numbers of tugs required, and that is important. It is also important to the ship owner, because he will have to pay different costs to different groups of people on different occasions. He will have to pay lighterage dues, tug dues, pilotage charges, docks dues and dues on cargo.
At present, it is a complicated procedure for a shipowner to bring a ship into London, because of the host of different authorities to which he has to pay charges. It is not so of many Continental ports. The Minister should therefore consult the London General Shipowners Association or the General Council of Shipping. They do not wish the port of London to be further reduced in size, and they are concerned with the operations and facilities of the port.
Even if the Minister cannot accept the amendments, an undertaking by him that he will make such consultations before giving any directions under the Bill will set at nought many suspicions and anxieties. If he does not give an undertaking, the anxiety regarding the future of the port can only be increased, and I am sure that he does not want that to happen.

Amendment No. 16 requires the direction given by the Minister in the course of the preceding year to be included
 in the relevant Annual Report of the Port of London Authority.

The Minister should make public the directions that he is empowered to make by the Bill. I hope that he will issue a press release or a statement, or that someone will be inspired to ask him a question so that he may make these matters clear. Even if that is done, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. At present, we are supplied with a list of directions made by the Minister on finance. The list appears in an annual report. That report should include directions of the Minister on any actions of the PLA in respect of the Bill.

I have gone rapidly through a list of requests. However, I can assure the Minister that if he does not accept the amendments the way in which he takes account of them in his future actions will be important in terms of the attitude and reaction of those who work in the port. The Minister should remember that the port is not only the PLA. It is a sensitive and complex organism of many groups providing many different types of service on land and water. He must be aware of the effects of his directions. His directions may be good for the accounts but bad for the port. The latter effect should be taken into consideration before directions are made.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I support amendments Nos. 13 and 15. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has listed the various bodies which the Minister should consult on the proposals to give financial assistance to the Port of London Authority. I do not wish further to list the bodies that should be consulted, except to refer to the local authorities that will bear the brunt of the social and unemployment problems that could arise not only from the closure of the upper docks but if Tilbury docks should face difficulties in future.
I referred on Second Reading to the possible problems faced by the decline in New Zealand trade as a result of the decisions of the EEC. Such problems could also arise as the result of a future decision by the authority to push for new docks at Maplin. That would drive trade further down the river and would in the process, in my view, destroy Tilbury. I am aware that that is not the view of the authority.
I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, stress the need for consultation with local authorities because of the problems of unemployment and the related social problems that could arise from the closure of the upper docks and the possible decline of trade at Tilbury.
The extent of such problems may be seen by taking into account recent surveys of the importance of docks for employment. It is suggested that the number of dock-related jobs arising from one dock job is 3:1 or 4:1. The closure of a dock is important not only for the loss of jobs within it but because of the implications for dock-related industries. It is also important, but more indirectly, for other services both private and public.
It is vital for consultations with organisations such as local authorities to take place on the nature of the financial assistance that is to be given, in this instance, to the Port of London Authority, and certainly to docks generally. That is not the argument that I wish to pursue. I wish to stress that such consultation would have to be wider ranging than the report that was produced by Price Water-house.
I referred on Second Reading to the narrowness of that report. The authors

indicate that they are aware of its narrowness. That has been stressed again in the debate. It is not enough to consider only the financial considerations that are set out in the Price Waterhouse report. It is not enough to assume that a reduction in manpower, important though that is, especially in relation to the category B men, will solve the problems of the authority.
It is interesting to look at a Port of London Authority's comments on the joint docklands action group analysis. In those comments there is an implicit recognition of the need for wider consultation. The PLA expresses unease over the implications for the community of the decisions to close part or, indeed, the whole of the upper docks. It recognises that in any decision it makes there are major environmental and social problems to be considered. However, it accepts that the original Act of Parliament setting up the PLA indicates clearly that it has no formal responsibility to the community. There is unease in those comments. The PLA recognises the impact of its decisions on unemployment and reducing the amount of industry in the area surrounding the docks, yet is aware that it has no formal responsibility. Our amendment would ensure that the Minister more definitely took account of the need for the PLA to be responsible and accountable to the communities and other bodies that its decision affects.
In some of its comments the PLA recognises that the issues involved in seeking viability are wider than those contained in the Price Waterhouse report. It refers to the fact that a ship going to berth in the docks has to pay PLA dock charges and dock pilotage over and above charges payable at riverside berths. It recognises that that is a difficulty which presents the PLA with serious problems of competition with other United Kingdom and European ports.
That should raise questions about the way that the PLA has to operate and about the other bodies that it has to deal with. It should raise the whole issue of subsidies for port charges. None of those issues is covered in the Price Water-house report or in the Bill, which implicitly accepts the conclusions of Price Waterhouse by suggesting that the PLA


will become viable if the Government provide the sums outlined and thus enable the PLA to reduce its excessive manpower.
The PLA has made efforts to obtain additional business for the upper docks and for Tilbury, but it blames industrial problems for the failure. That issue should be examined further. The PLA's conclusion that industrial problems and excess manpower have led to the difficulties is too easily accepted by the Minister and brought to a conclusion in this Bill. The Minister should consult the other relevant bodies, which would give him a broader picture of the problems faced by the PLA. He would then see that the decisions of the PLA to cut back in the West India docks are not taken in a vacuum but have important implications for the surrounding community.
Any decision about the financing of the PLA can properly be made only by consulting local authorities and other bodies, as suggested in our amendments. Only by so doing can the PLA become a viable concern. From time to time, the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that. However, he has not done so in an entirely consistent manner. Towards the end of his speech, he seemed to veer round towards the Price Waterhouse analysis and interpretation of the Port of London Authority's difficulties.
Some of the issues that should be examined have been covered by " London's Docks: An Alternative Strategy ". The document was produced by the joint docklands action group and by the Tower Hamlets action committee on jobs. I do not wish to suggest that I necessarily support every part of that analysis, or every option proposed. However, the document raises some important issues that should be carefully examined. For example, it stresses that the PLA should change its marketing activities. It points out that a major recommendation of the joint port trade development committee was that the Port of London Authority should restructure its marketing activities and adopt, where appropriate, a functional marketing structure. It suggests that facilities should be marketed by type rather than by geographical location, as at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for New-ham, South pointed out weaknesses in the management structure of the Port of London Authority. He also pointed out weaknesses in its activities. Those are important weaknesses that should be examined by those who wish to ensure that the Port of London Authority becomes a viable concern. The analysis points out that there has been a lack of investment. The authors point out that general investment is badly needed in plant, equipment, buildings, and, in particular, the provision of roads. Such investment is needed to make up for lack of investment in the past.
Tilbury is the largest container dock in the United Kingdom. As yet, it has no major motorway into it. The roads that lead directly to Tilbury docks are for the most part old, ordinary, narrow surburban roads. They carry heavy traffic and are subject to great congestion. Tilbury docks is in urgent need of a proper road connection. We are only beginning to see part of that network. That is being provided by the M25 and by improvements to the A13. The provision of adequate road connections should be examined if Tilbury and the Port of London Authority are to be made profitable and successful concerns. Such investment is sorely needed.
The Price Waterhouse report does not consider the past lack of investment and its implications for the viability of the PLA. The analysis suggests that specialised facilities should be developed to capture particular trades. The figures of the National Ports Council show that specialised trade in forest products, iron and steel, chemicals, animal and vegetable oils and cement will rise dramatically in the next few years. They show that such trade will amount to 26 million tonnes by 1985. That is another important area of possible expansion.
However, those options have not been examined in the report that the Minister has considered. There has been a lack of consultation with bodies such as the National Ports Council. Such bodies could provide the necessary information and could push for that type of development. I do not believe that the Bill will achieve that objective. It will help; that is why we are not opposing it. But that is not enough. To accept the conclusions of the report, to sit back and have no


further inquiry or consultations and to expect the PLA suddenly to become a viable concern in the years to 1983 is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land. The PLA has much deeper and much more serious problems than those covered by that superficial report.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The amendments have a common theme. They require that there is consultation with various bodies, or inquiries of various kinds, before any assistance is paid or any conditions are imposed. Two general observations argue against imposing such statutory obligations at this stage. First, the sum of money is limited to £70 million and a substantial part of it has already been committed and spent, largely by the Labour Government at a time when no conditions were imposed. We are more than halfway through a policy.
No less than £42 million of the £70 million of Government assistance provided under the Bill has already been taken up. Our predecessors disbursed those sums, in grants for severance and backing for commercial loans, on the authority of the Estimates backed up by Appropriation Acts. They made a footnote, undertaking that they would legislate in due course to give themselves authority to disburse those sums.
As a Member rather than a Minister, may I say that that procedure is novel. It is a further startling example of the inadequacy of control by the House over Government expenditure. I am assured that the procedure is proper. It was followed by the previous Government. We seek full constitutional legitimacy for the expenditure of the £42 million spent under the previous Government's policy. We are dealing only with the remaining £28 million of Government assistance. Tight statutory obligations to consult and inquire before the disbursement of the remaining £28 million are proposed.
Secondly, everybody appears to be satisfied that we should, in circumstances such as those set out by my right hon. Friend last year, disburse assistance to a limit of £70 million to the Port of London Authority. That assistance is needed if the port is to continue to trade when it is running down its manpower to the levels necessary to achieve viability. One effect of the statutory consultation

and inquiry process canvassed by the Opposition Members is endless delay before further sums can be disbursed. The PLA's problems are such that if we launch now on a wide-ranging public inquiry or detailed consultation with every public body which has a legitimate interest in the future of the port or the associated parts of East London, there is a serious danger that the PLA will be no longer trading.
Perhaps the Committee would be content with more straightforward consultation, although the question of the suggested subject matter and the people whom we might consult has taken up considerable debating time. What is being urged upon the Government is that a process that is bound to cause delay should now be introduced into this policy before the final £28 million worth of assistance is available, on the right conditions, to the Port of London Authority.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that on these amendments we are speaking of inquiries and /or consultations prior to the imposition of conditions? That is rather different from the release of the £28 million. Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the money could be paid?
While we are on the issue of control by the House, how else does the Minister think that hon. Members can seek to ensure that money is well spent other than by suggesting inquiries at the point at which the money is authorised by the House?

Mr. Clarke: The House can normally scrutinise expenditure when it is put before the House in the form of a Bill such as this seeking authority for a Minister to disburse assistance. What happened, no doubt for very good reasons which we do not dispute, under the last Labour Government in relation to this policy was that no debate of any kind on the disbursement of the moneys appears to have taken place. The undertaking to legislate was tucked away as a footnote in the Estimates. In fact, £42 million worth of money has already either been given by way of grant or committed by way of backing to loans in that way. We are putting that right. This is the procedure, in this Bill, by which Parliament is sanctioning that expenditure and the remaining £28 million.
It is true that the amendments ask for a wide-ranging inquiry and for an Order in Council procedure before any conditions are imposed. As we made clear on Second Reading, and as we made clear in the debate on a subsequent group of amendments, also tabled in the names of the hon. Members for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) and Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), we have no intention of imposing detailed managerial conditions upon the Port of London Authority.
The full conditions upon which this assistance is to be given were clearly set out in my right hon. Friend's statement to the House in December last year. They set out clearly the way in which assistance would be given, partly by grant and partly by backing to loans, the basic condition being that this is to reinforce a policy of reducing manpower to the necessary levels to achieve viability for 1983.
There are no new detailed conditions of a managerial kind—which the hon. Members clearly anticipate—to be made which need give rise to inquiries and Orders in Council. If hon. Members do not accept my assurance—if we were contemplating conditions before disbursement of further assistance—the need to have a wide-ranging inquiry before we could impose those conditions would lead to delay before any assistance could be given on the conditions which were objected to or inquired into. Therefore, one way or another, it seems to me that all the amendments give rise to the risk of delay in giving further assistance.
The amendments also give rise to an unnecessary level of discussion and debate on essentially managerial and industrial relations problems which probably are not likely to be assisted by too much public debate and discussion. Let me make it clear that, when I say that we do not need a wide-ranging inquiry and discussion—I shall develop this argument shortly—the Government are not closing their ears to any views on the future of the Port of London Authority. We are quite prepared to study reports from interested groups such as local authorities and other bodies which wish to make submissions.
But the idea that we now need an organised public inquiry to which everyone can make submissions on managerial

problems, or a process of statutory consultations which, of necessity, would involve months of discussions with local authorities and everybody referred to, seems to me not to be in the interests of the Port of London Authority which needs now to get on with the decisions that have to be taken.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I do not wish to extend the period of consultation, to which my hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention, but will the Minister inform the Committee whether the Port of London Authority would qualify for section 8 grants for the Royal docks, which took the rail links out some time ago, in the event of redeveloping the Royal docks? If section 8 grants were applied for, would the PLA qualify for such grants?

Mr. Clarke: That is section 8 grants for railway equipment and sidings. It is possible that some aid could have been given under section 8 of the Industry Act, but we did not follow that method as that would merely involve an Order in Council, not a full Act of the kind that we are now proposing.
As regards new rail facilities in the ports, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm my off-the-cuff judgment. If any customer who uses Port of London Authority land sought assistance to put on to rail traffic that would otherwise go by road and the normal criteria were satisfied that there were environmental reasons for doing so, but that the traffic would not go by rail unless some assistance were given to the customer with the rolling stock, sidings or equipment of that kind, my belief is that such an application would be eligible for section 8 grant. Section 8 grants are dealt with sympathetically by the Government. They have had occasion to turn down only one since they came into office and they have given approval to a considerable number.
I return to the various amendments and consultations that are proposed and deal with the form of consultation or the body involved as set out in each of the amendments.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), on behalf of the official Opposition, moved an amendment seeking consultation with the National Ports Council. Inevitably, the hon. Gentleman. strayed into general


policy on the future of the National Ports Council. He knows that my right hon. Friend has already announced his intention to legislate to abolish the National Ports Council. That, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, has the full approval of the ports industry. But it certainly gives rise to various questions about how the functions carried out by the National Ports Council can be carried out in future where it is essential in everybody's interests, including the consumers, that they should be carried out.
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Government are heavily engaged in consultations with the NPC, the British Ports Association and consumer representatives of various kinds on the arrangements which will supersede the National Ports Council. Plainly it is important that various of the functions of the NPC should be continued by some body, and it is desirable that that body should represent fully the interests of the ports industry, the Government and the users of ports who are entitled to look for efficiency and good service from the ports.
However, the hon. Gentleman will know that this is not the time to start announcing policy conclusions. In any event, none has yet been reached. In due course, my right hon. Friend will make clear the precise nature of the legislation which will be introduced to abolish the National Ports Council and the policy which will deal with the future of those functions which the Government are satisfied will have to be carried out by some body to serve the ports industry.
Meanwhile, we have the National Ports Council. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the way in which it carries out its work. He was right in saying that we are asking it to study with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company the future arrangements for that port. But I suggest that it is inappropriate to involve the National Ports Council at this stage in statutory consultations on the future form of assistance to the PLA.
The position here is not the same as the position on the Mersey where uncertainties have arisen about the precise financial position and where steps have to be taken to explore possible future policies to get that port back to financial health. Here we have a clear policy statement first declared by the right hon.

Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) and amplified and expanded by my right hon. Friend in December last year. There is no basis upon which my right hon. Friend, having set out a clear policy, can now start consulting the National Ports Council before deciding whether to take it through to fruition.
10.45 pm
Similarly in the case of the request in amendment No. 13 and the need for an inquiry prior to the imposition of any conditions, as requested by the hon. Members for Thurrock and Newham, South, we have a perfectly clear policy upon which no inquiry can really bite, and there will not be further detailed conditions or controls over the management of the port which an inquiry could examine. I do not think that it would improve the morale of those in the PLA, either the management or the work force, if we now plunged them into a prolonged period of uncertainty whilst a wide-ranging public inquiry went over the sort of matters that have been explored by the two hon. Members.
I pay tribute to the encyclopaedic knowledge of the hon. Member for New-ham, South about the details of the port operation, with which he is very familiar, right in the heart of his constituency. The hon. Member for Thurrock raised many detailed points. Some are questions of history about management decisions in the port. Some are questions of tactics about the present handling of its problems. Some are broad-ranging inquiries about how the estuary and its trade might develop in the future.
But most of those matters, if examined in the depth which the two hon. Members have requested would involve us in taking a very long time to come to any conclusion. Utter uncertainty would reign, with the whole policy in suspense whilst this inquiry was going on. We would consult many bodies if we sought consultation with local authorities, which by no means agree with one another.
There is no unanimity of advice. There is no lack of advice on what to do about the PLA. But I very much doubt whether consultation would produce a simple clarification of the issues. There is also a danger that it would involve politicians in the House, in local authorities, in action groups and so on, in an attempt


to involve themselves in questions which in the end are essentially those for management—management in consultation with its trade unions, and management and the work force—but are not really matters about which a public body, be it Ministers or local authorities, can take executive decisions.
There is no point in our pretending that any public inquiry or any Minister or local authority is the best body to decide why a particular crane was installed in a particular dock at a particular time. I cannot believe that the future prospects of the PLA would improve if people were led to expect that that would be so.
I quite accept, as the hon. Member for Thurrock pointed out yet again, that of course the problems of the PLA are not only those of manpower. I have stated clearly on a number of occasions the large number of other factors which are involved. But most of the other factors involve management decisions now, and they do not involve further inquiries, further reports or study of the kind advocated.
When one talks about the other problems of the port and goes over the decisions and the steps that have been taken over the years, one realises that one must not do so in any way which seeks to get away from the nub of the problem. The nub of the problem concerning the financial position of the port is where the Government come in—in assisting the finances of the port during this difficult period, whilst the port deals with all the other problems with which it must deal to get itself back on to a sound footing.
Price Waterhouse, clearly dealing with the financial problems, says:
 The nub of the PLA's present financial problem is a combination of the uneconomic use of manpower and its inability to divest itself of manpower which is already surplus even on the basis of present uneconomic working practices. The PLA will not return to viability until it has improved its working practices and shed its surplus manpower.
That is the basis of the financial problem. It is the financial problem which the previous Government stepped in to solve. It is the financial problem in respect of which the present Government are offering the assistance that gives the chance to the port of getting back to viability by 1983 if the port deals with all these other matters and now follows a clear and consistent policy, gets the management de-
cisions right and gets the right cooperation from the work force. That is what must be done. We must not introduce steps that would delay that.
We have had three Price Waterhouse reports, many debates in the House and advice from local authorities, but there comes a stage in such a serious problem, which affects East London in so many ways, when we must stop having a continuous debating society, with chops and changes in direction and constant conflict between competing policy options, and reach clear policy decisions and pursue them as the best chance of getting the port back to health.
My right hon. Friend announced in December a clear policy decision that the Government would give the necessary financial assistance, at the least cost to the taxpayer, to enable the port to shed manpower and thereby to get back to viability by 1983. All the other options have been considered, but our proposal is also the policy of the PLA, which accepts the cash limits imposed by my right hon. Friend. It has set out the way in which it intends to make use of the opportunity that my right hon. Friend has provided—the transfer option with the closure of the India and Millwall docks and hoping to win a future for the Royals and Tilbury and to get back to a sound financial footing by 1983 in order to give secure jobs to those who work there.
The PLA must be allowed to get on with it. At a time when the last tranches of the assistance are to be given, the imposition of a plethora of consultation, inquiries and discussions would cloud the issues and merely continue the uncertainties and delays in the port of London.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Parliamentary Secretary distinguish between investigations into the PLA—we had to use the vehicle of the Bill to express our views—and the relationship of the PLA to the port as a whole? The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the financial viability of the port, meaning that of the PLA. Even if he does not accept the amendments, will he consider that there might be a place for an inquiry into the function of the PLA within the port of London, because four-fifths of the tonnage is not dealt with by the PLA?

Mr. Clarke: I accept the validity of that point, which the hon. Gentleman made on Second Reading and earlier in Committee. The PLA is not the port of London. Many other operators are involved. I am not moved to offer an inquiry, but the points made by the hon. Gentleman do not fall on deaf ears. He had to use the Bill as a vehicle, but he has used it to a considerable extent to put forward many suggestions and criticisms in relation to the PLA. They are studied, and the fact that we are shutting out statutory consultation and a normal public inquiry does not mean that my right hon. Friend and the Government are deaf to advice. There is plenty of that, but the Government have to make a decision and give the PLA a chance to get on with it.

Mr. Prescott: When the Parliamentary Secretary says that it is time for the debate to stop, I wonder whether he thinks that nothing has been happening in the port of London. Thousands of workers have been made redundant, wharves and docks have been closed and there is a general drift downstream. That is what causes uncertainty.
Five or six reports by the PLA over the past 14 months have drawn different conclusions. That does not help to create certainty. There has been a clamour, as reflected by my hon. Friends, for an independent inquiry.
The basis of the Minister's argument includes the fact that the money provided for in the Labour Government's 1978 Bill—he mentioned £42 million—has already been spent, and that the then Govern-men imposed no consultation requirement on the National Ports Council in the granting of that money. That is true, but we used other authorities to give assessments and reports. We had reports from the joint trade union study and local authorities, and the Government, on the basis of those reports, decided that the Royals must be maintained. We intervened on advice from bodies other than the PLA. Indeed, we went against the advice of the PLA, which was to close the Royals—a view that seemed to be endorsed by the Minister when he was the Opposition spokesman on transport. The other important consideration is that we were not proposing to abolish the National Ports Council. Therefore, we envisaged a role for it.
The Minister argues that delays will cause a further crisis. As he has made clear, however, the money has already been spent, and we are not arguing against further money being spent in this area. But all the National Ports Council can do—we have said that we think that this is one of its weaknesses—is recommend to the Minister. So it is not a tight control; it can make its recommendations and the Minister can ignore such recommendations. But it is the view of hon. Members closely involved in the PLA area that it needs to have somebody closely involved in decisions at present being made in the giving of the grants so that they can assess what they fear may be the further consequences of pursuing the Price Waterhouse logic. The arguments used to justify what happened to the upper Millwall and India docks well be used for closing the Royal docks. My hon. Friends argue that there should be another body to give an independent assessment of that.
Even in the Price Waterhouse terms, with which we greatly disagree, it is recognised that there was possibly a case, after the manpower reductions, for a financial reconstruction. If there is to be a financial reconstruction as an essential element in returning this port to viability, clearly there must be assessments by other authorities—the National Ports Council is an obvious one—and it is best to involve them as early as possible in this reconstruction.
The decision to close the upper docks, the Millwall and India, has been forced by the Government's decisions in regard to cash limits. To present this Bill as not interfering with managerial decisions flies in the face of the evidence as to what cash limits mean to policy, not only for the ports but in every other area.
Again, to take the Price Waterhouse example, looking at the various options given, ranging through the terms "concentration", "transfer" and "radical", it is no coincidence that the one chosen, namely, the transfer policy, is the cheapest in public expenditure terms. We might not have a port policy influenced by cash limits but we have a monetary port policy. It is the one that does not give the best commercial viability prospects on Price Waterhouse's considerations but it is the cheapest to the Exchequer. That has


nothing necessarily to do with port policy but more to do with the financial policy of the Government.
In regard to the National Ports Council, when we were asking how it was to be dealt with in the future it sounded to me like "The National Ports Council is dead: long live the National Ports Council". It will be another separate set of civil servants carrying out exactly the same functions. But we will await the Bill to see what happens. Clearly somebody will have to carry out the functions, and I have a sneaking feeling that in one way or another civil servants will be involved.
When I referred to the Harbours (Loan) Act 1972 and the collapse of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board I was talking not solely of the debt problems of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board but of the redeeming debt problems of other port authorities, and I think that was one of the reasons for that Bill. The loans were designed to give help to other port authorities,

not the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. I said then that the National Ports Council had been used by the previous Tory Administration as a requirement for consideration and consultation in regard to loans. In this Bill, it is a question of direct grants, so in that sense there would seem to be an even better case.

Nevertheless, our argument is that, with the increasing uncertainty over the future of the PLA docks, the possible decline of the Royal docks if commercial criteria are allowed to determine the dock structure in the PLA area, and the crucial issues involved, it is absolutely right that the National Ports Council be considered for consultation in these measures and all future measures, including financial reconstruction, which we think is essential to the solving of the problems in the PLA area.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 66, Noes 119.

Division No. 284]
AVES
[11pm


Alton, David
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parry, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pavitt, Laurie


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Homewood, William
Richardson, Jo


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton ft P)
Janner, Hon Greville
Rooker, J. W.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Leighton, Ronald
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Soley, Clive


Daylell, Tam
Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Dobson, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dormand, Jack
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tinn, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Welsh, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Winnick, David


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



Evans, John (Newton)
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Forrester, John
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Terry Davis and


Foulkes, George
Park, George
Mr. George Morton.


Graham, Ted




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dover, Denshore


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Bulmer, Esmond
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Eggar, Timothy


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Farr, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biggs-Davison, John
Chapman, Sydney
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Blackburn, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bright, Graham
Colvin, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brinton, Tim
Cope, John
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Costain, A. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Brotherton, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Critchley, Julian
Hannam, John




Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hawksley, Warren
Mudd, David
Stevens, Martin


Heddle, John
Myles, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald


Knox, David
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lang, Ian
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Waddington, David


Lee, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Le Marchant, Spencer
Parris, Matthew
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Ward, John


Loveridge, John
Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Lyell, Nicholas
Pollock, Alexander
Watson, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Porter, George
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


MacGregor, John
Proctor, K. Harvey
Wheeler, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Renton, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Major, John
Rhodes James, Robert
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Marlow, Antony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolfson, Mark


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Younger, Rt Hon George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)



Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Sims, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. John Wakeham and


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Speller, Tony
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 16, after 'may', insert 'by order'.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
'(2A) No order shall be made under subsection (2) above unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and been approved by, both Houses of Parliament.'.

Mr. Booth: The part of the Bill to which this amendment is addressed gives the Minister the power to impose any conditions which he considers necessary on any grant or loan to the Port of London Authority. The Bill makes clear that they are not only conditions as to when and how a grant is to be repaid in such circumstances as the Minister might specify, but conditions as to the future management of the PLA's undertaking and as to the services and the facilities provided by the authority.
The drafting of the Bill reflects a certain schizophrenia in the instructions given by the Minister to the parliamentary draftsmen. It is clear that the Minister wants to take the line that, having laid down limits as to how much financial aid the Government will provide to the Port of London Authority, they want the management to get on with managing and do not want to be bothered any further. Yet this part of the Bill contains a massive power to intervene in a manner which was obviously written under the banner "All power to the

Executive". There is no indication of how the House may control that intervention or say whether the conditions are appropriate.
It was significant that in replying to the debate on the previous amendment the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was most inappropriate at this stage to start consulting about conditions because a large part of the money had already been spent or committed. We agree that the money has been spent or committed. However, surely it is a double-edged argument to say that that is a reason for not consulting, and then to include a provision in the Bill that gives power to apply all sorts of conditions without such consultation or without any further sanction of the House. Therefore, if the conditions which the Minister seeks to apply have already been spelt out in the ministerial statement on the issue, there is no reason whatsoever why those conditions should not have been included in the Bill. We could then have agreed or disagreed with them.

Mr. Roger Moate: The right hon. Gentleman is making a point about the need to consult Parliament and the need to give greater opportunities for Parliament to take an active part in such matters. However, he has not answered one general point. His Government committed £42 million by way of expenditure or backing up a loan, and no parliamentary process whatsoever was granted. That money was conceded under the Appropriation Acts. It is a bit thick for him to say that the present Government,


who have brought legislation before the House, should give far more consultation than his Government ever allowed.

Mr. Booth: It is not at all unreasonable for me to put a proposition whereby, if the Minister wishes to attach conditions which will affect the way in which the port will be managed and the way in which services are to be provided, the House will have a right to ask which conditions the Minister wants to apply and will have the right to say "Yes" or "No".
The Labour Government were faced with the problem of the Port of London Authority saying that to stay within a certain financial framework the decision must be taken to do away with the upper docks. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has made the fair point that that was done by means of the Appropriation Acts. The then Labour Government said "We shall provide money for severance on the condition that the upper docks are not closed." That was a straightforward decision hat was made subject to the cover of the Appropriation Acts and now that of the Bill.
11.15 pm
There comes a time when a decision has to be made. There is a time when the responsible Minister requires the power to apply various conditions. That is the time when the House has to decide whether such power is appropriate. I suggest that it is not the appropriate time for the Minister to be saying "I want these powers to decide." I say that partly for reasons that have already been given—for instance, that the money is already committed and that the Minister is refusing to apply the condition that I sought to write into the Bill, that of maintaining the Royals. As the Minister has announced the conditions, it would be far better to write them into the Bill.
I accept that the Government will not necessarily be persuaded that those are the limitations within which they should work. I understand that the Government may say "Although we have stated what the conditions are, we may want to make changes in the light of developments." I understand that argument if that is the one that is forthcoming. If they say that that is the nature of the problem that is confronting the authority and that circumstances may change be- 
fore all of the £70 million has gone, I contend that it is appropriate in those circumstances to consult the House.
The amendment gives the House of Commons precisely the power to control the situation that I have described. It provides that if the Minister wants to impose such a condition and if he wants to set conditions on how the future mangement of the authority is to be undertaken, how it is to be run and how its services and facilities are to be varied, he should lay an affirmative order. If the House of Commons wants to challenge the order, it may do so. If it does not, it can accept it on the nod. However, such a system would create the opportunity for challenge. Surely it is highly appropriate for the House of Commons to have that opportunity in all the circumstances. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I hope that it will win the support of the Committtee.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) had no effective answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). The Labour Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, committed £42 million worth of assistance to the industry without any parliamentary debate and with such conditions as they at the time thought fit. That was done merely on the promise that eventually they would legislate to give themselves power to spend the money, and presumably give themselves the power to impose the conditions that they had already imposed.
Against that background, it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the final instalment of Government assistance should be subject to the tightest parliamentary scrutiny and that we should require an order to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before we can impose any further conditions upon the payment of final sums, although we are all agreed that the final sums have probably to be committed to help the authority out of its difficulties.
Although that is a slightly startling position for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt, I can offer him a reply that he may find reassuring. I accept that there is force in his remarks about the wording of the Bill, which gives a fairly sweeping power to impose conditions on the future


management of the undertaking and the service and facilities to be provided. My right hon. Friend and I have given repeated assurances that the Government have no intention of imposing management decisions on the PLA. We are leaving decisions about future facilities, for example, to the authority's judgment. We shall leave it to deal with its own problems.
Having given thought to that point, raised by Opposition Members on Second Reading, we intend to accept amendment No. 12 standing in the names of the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald).
The provision will include only those conditions that require a grant to be repaid in specified circumstances. Obviously, we must insist on that. If the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness fears that detailed conditions will be imposed by my right hon. Friend before further assistance is made available, his mind can be set at rest. We propose to accept his hon. Friends' amendment. That amendment will take such a power from my right hon. Friend. Indeed, he had no intention of using it.
In addition, we have no intention of being secretive. My right hon. Friend has fully disclosed the basis of his policy. The whole policy was set out in a statement made in response to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham on 7 December 1979. It set out the conditions and policy behind the grants and financial support. There has been no attempt to avoid questions about the basis of our policy. We are not keeping some new policy tack secret until the House has agreed to further financial assistance. We shall continue fully to disclose events at the Port of London Authority, the rate at which money is disbursed, and the basis upon which that is being done. There is no need to make an order. There is certainly no need for further parliamentary procedures that would require the consent of both Houses whenever any conditions were contemplated on further assistance.

Mr. Booth: The Parliamentary Secretary has been very helpful. He has removed the major prop of my argument. I should be less than responsive if I did not admit that my argument about the future

management of the authority's undertaking and about the impact of this provision on services and facilities will be fully met by the Government in other amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 17, after 'fit', insert
'other than closure of any enclosed dock.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 11, in page 1, line 17, after 'fit', insert
'other than disposal of land.'.
No. 12, in page, 1, line 18, leave out from ' circumstances ' to end of line 20.

Mr. Spearing: The amendment relates to closure of a dock. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about amendment No. 12. Perhaps he will also consider this amendment. The amendment should be considered in relation to my previous remarks on the Royal docks. I sought to draw a distinction between the withdrawal of PLA cargo handling facilities, and the filling in and selling off of a dock, to the extent that it is no longer accessible to ships.
The West India dock has been incorrectly described as "closed". Ships still go into that dock. I hope that the Port of London Authority will lease some of the quay space so that dock work and related activity can continue. I accept that the PLA may not choose to operate any of those facilities.
My amendment deals with complete closure and not merely the withdrawal of PLA operations. Complete closure would involve filling in, the lock going out of use and access for shipping being made impossible. The Minister may point to the jobs that may result from activities on the land reclaimed from water. However, there are already large areas of land in East London, the remainder of London and throughout the country awaiting development. It is an oft-repeated cry that surplus land is available which is not productively used. Although it would afford a large acreage, if ships were not able to go alongside the quays the use of adjacent land might be reduced. I hope that my argument will commend itself to the Minister. I suggest that land


adjacent to water where large ships can go alongside, is likely to retain its value for that reason alone. In terms of good planning and civic use, that land could be used for processing and manufacturing related to the presence of ships.
If such land is disposed of, it is not necessarily the Minister's function to do that. It may be that of the local authority or the urban development corporation, if that animal ever gets off the ground. It is not necessarily the function of the Minister responsible for the statutory undertaking who therefore happens to have the land—although in this case it is not land; it is water. It is inappropriate for such directions to be given, and the prohibition should be made in the Bill.

Amendment No. 11 relates to the disposal of land. One criticism of the PLA, which I did not embark on at length in my previous speech, is that in the past it has been more interested in land development than in ships and shipping. Recent figures demonstrate that it owns no fewer than 4,000 acres in and around the Port of London and its estuary. That figure has been reduced by sales, specifically to local authorities—and I am pleased about that for the London borough of Newham and the Beckton redevelopment. However, the PLA still has considerable property, some of it not associated with dock work. There are industrial estates at Cliffe in Kent, which conceivably could be very valuable, especially as they are adjacent to the deep water channel. Although the deep water does not go right up against the land, wharves or offshore pontoons could make that land industrially significant.

Again I doubt whether the disposal of land is the function of the Minister of Transport. The Secretary of State for the Environment, for instance, is taking powers to require statutory undertakings to sell off land if he believes that they should. That is against my better judgment, but at least that Secretary of State has planning functions, and he may be supervising the urban development corporation. I suggest that the function of selling off land should not be given to the Minister in terms of direction.

I understand that what I have had to say on these amendments may look different in view of the announcement which the Minister has just made to the effect that he accepts amendment No. 12 to delete all the words after " circumstances " on page 1, which will mean that the words
and conditions as to the future management of the Authority's undertaking and the services and facilities to be provided by the Authority"

will be removed from the Bill.

I am glad that the Minister has agreed to make this alteration. It brings the Bill more into line with the policies which he and the Minister of Transport, whom we welcomed to the debate, have already expressed. If our amendment had not been accepted, the Minister would have been in trouble from me on the question of an inquiry on the "clause stand part" debate because he was saying that he did not intend to use these functions, yet quite clearly powers were being given to another Minister who could exercise them in a way detrimental to the port as a whole.

I hope that the phrase
the future management of the Authority's undertaking

includes closure of docks and disposal of land and comes within that part of the Bill which the Minister has graciously agreed to delete. Therefore, I suggest that the other qualifications might also be added to that part of the Bill which still stands.

Mr. Ogden: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and wish to speak specifically to amendment No. 11, dealing with the phrase:
other than disposal of land.
I wish to make one comment and one suggestion and to ask for more information about the attitude of the Department towards the disposal of land.
Does the Minister appreciate that one of the major changes in nearly all ports over the past 10 years has been the change in the relationship between the amount of wharfage, or berthage—the total distance available up against which a ship could come—and the storing and docking faci-


lities at the side of those berths? In the past we had piers inside enclosed spaces in our ports and the distance of wharfage against which a ship could come compared with the amount of space at the side was much the same. Ships required storage and handling facilities, cargo sheds and so on, but they were comparatively close together. One of the results of containerisation has been that the amount of space against which ships are allowed to berth needs to be much less because the turnround of ships is much greater. At the same time, the amount of land needed at the side of the berths has increased greatly.
We have seen the infilling of some docks to provide standing space for containers and for handling facilities. Land use has changed considerably within the dock structure. Even though the Minister is not willing to intervene directly in day-to-day management, I should like to know what is the Department's policy about land disposal. I put this point to him, which should be entirely in accordance with good, wholehearted, old-fashioned Tory Party philosophy. There is a finite amount of land in these islands. There is very little variation as between one part of the country and another. We have no great Zuider Zee to call upon. Land is scarce. I hope that it is departmental policy, while it may lease, and encourage people to go into partnership, to discourage the sale of land by public authorities. That it should be used by others, and under the control of others to a degree, is permissible, but I hope that the Minister will agree that the ultimate ownership of land ought to be within public authorities so that there is some public responsibility. I should appreciate it if the Minister would tell me what his policies are.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): We are dealing with three amendments, and perhaps I might start with the good news. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for the point that he made on Second Reading, when he said that he could not reconcile this aspect of subsection (2) with the Government's policy, that is, that there should be a condition about the future management of the PLA's undertaking and the services and facilities that it provides. On

examination, I think that he is right. We believe that this would be contrary to our policy of leaving management decisions to the PL A, and the amendment therefore meets the policy that is set out in the Bill. It is our policy, as I have said before, to leave the management of the undertaking and decisions on its services and facilities in the hands of the PLA, I am glad to accept amendment No. 12 and to offer the hon. Gentleman our thanks for having spotted that one.
I cannot be as forthcoming on the other two amendments. The purpose of amendment No. 10 is to prevent the Minister from making any financial assistance provided under the Bill conditional upon the closure of any of the enclosed docks. The effect would be that the Minister could not make it a condition of his financial assistance that the PLA should close the Royal docks, even though those docks might be making a loss and preventing the PLA from recovering profitability.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that the Royal docks should remain open. Indeed, he and other Members for some of the constituencies affected in London have been to see me. I have had a meeting and talks with them, and I understand their concern. I know that, if they do not agree with the Government, they understand the Government's attitude. As I made clear on Second Reading, we do not think that the Government should be involved in management decisions. Decisions on options such as the retention or closure of docks are for the PLA board and not for the Government. In saying that I accepted amendment No. 12, I made it clear that we had no intention of intervening in management decisions. We therefore have no intention of requiring the PLA to close or to keep open any part of its undertaking, and I hope that the Committee will not accept amendment No. 10.
Perhaps I should add that the PLA management recently told its work force that its aim was to make the Royal docks succeed; and it will be improving facilities at the Royals to accommodate traffic diverted from the India and Mill-wall docks. We hope that that will take place, but I am convinced that that is a decision for the PLA board and not for the Government.
I fear that I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) about amendment No. 11 and land disposal policy. It is no part of the Government's policy to discourage the sale of surplus land—quite the contrary. I believe that this policy should be pursued in the way that the Government are pursuing it. This takes us into the further reaches of a debate that is rather narrower than the amendment.
The purpose of amendment No. 11 is to prevent the Minister from making any financial assistance that he might give to the PLA conditional upon the disposal of any of its land. As I said on the two previous amendments, we have no intention of intervening in matters that are for the PLA to decide. This applies as much to its land disposal as to its services and facilities. Management matters are for the PLA board and not for the Government. I therefore accept amendment No. 12, but, on the same logic, I reject the other two.

Mr. Spearing: It seems that my success with amendment No. 12 carries with it a certain amount of logic in relation to the safeguarding of the area of

enclosed dock and the disposal of land. I do not necessarily think that the amendment would exclude that because the Bill could be conditional. I accept what the Minister says about the Government's philosophy. The House could say that the money should be given to the PLA provided that it does not close a dock or sell any land. We might have different views about the wisdom of that on a political basis but the Bill has been of non-party controversy, to some extent, and I can see that to pursue that line would not be fruitful.

However, 127 acres of water space in the Millwall and West India docks and about 220 acres of water space in the Royal docks are important and have the qualities which I have described. The Minister did not dissent from that. I shall not seek to withdraw amendment No. 10. I prefer the Committee to take its decision in the light of the Minister's recommendation. However, I shall seek to move amendment No. 12 formally.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 0, Noes 113.

Division No. 285]
AYES
[11.42 pm


NIL


TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Mr. Bob Cryer.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Loveridge, John


Alton, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lyell, Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Dover, Denshore
Macfarlane, Neil


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacGregor, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Eggar, Timothy
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Major, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Farr, John
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Blackburn, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Brotherton, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mudd, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Hannam, John
Myles, David


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Heddle, John
Newton, Tony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Mrs Jill
Parris, Matthew


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Patten, John (Oxford)


Cockeram, Eric
Lang, Ian
Pattie, Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Lee, John
Pawsey, James


Cope, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Penhaligon, David


Costain, A. P.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pollock, Alexander


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Proctor, K. Harvey




Rhodes James, Robert
Tebbit, Norman
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thompson, Donald
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wakeham, John
Wolfson, Mark


Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Steel, Rt Hon David
Waller, Gary



Stevens, Martin
Ward, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Stradling Thomas, J.
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. David Waddington and


Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Watson, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 1, line 18, leave out from
'circumstances' to end of line 20.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Mr. Prescott: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 22, leave out
'and on such conditions as he thinks fit'.
This is basically a probing amendment to attempt to understand the Government's use of these words in this clause.
I am in some difficulty because the reference in subsection (2) is to the Minister of Transport, whereas the one relating to the dock labour scheme is to the Secretary of State. I presume that the distinction is that "Secretary of State" refers to the Department of Employment. However, in other legislation it has not seemed necessary to include these words.
We are here dealing with payments by the Government to the National Dock Labour Board to reimburse it for payments to the Port of London Authority's registered dock workers in the voluntary severance schemes. These matters are usually financed out of the normal levy funding arrangements, but certain moneys have been advanced for special payments for excessive surplus manpower requirements. I understand that the payments so far out of this money amount to approximately £11½ million, the last payment being in about February 1980.
The amendment is not concerned with questioning the consent of the Treasury about the conditions of the granting of such loans—for example, the financial requirements on loans, grants and so on, the interest payments and the periods of time in which they should be paid.
The Dock Work Regulation Act 1976 clearly says in section 3(3), dealing with the finances of the board:
The Secretary of State may lend to the Board any sums which they have power to borrow, and any such loans shall be repaid by the Board at such times, and in such manner,

and interest on the loans shall be paid at such rates and at such times as he may from time to time direct.
Subsection (5) makes it clear that this is conditional on Treasury approval.
The point is that clearly all moneys given towards severance payments under the national dock labour scheme are conditional on and are directed solely to the financial requirements.
We take the view that the inclusion of the words
and on such conditions as he thinks fit
suggests that, in the light of what has been said in regard to policy and the reduction of manpower, other criteria may be introduced laying down conditions on how, to whom and on what criteria the severance payments will be made.
The Government have been involved in giving extra moneys, particularly to London, as in this financial measure, but there have also been payments to Liverpool, which had excessive manpower requirements and faced considerable severance problems. Money has also been provided by Government outside that financed by levies for the abolition of the temporary unattached pool, which was again a recommendation arising out of the dock problems in 1972, and particularly the Jones-Aldington recommendations. The Government made about £30 million available as a contribution to the reduction of the dock labour force by a considerable amount particularly in those areas in which for that payment it was laid down that preference should be given to dockers who were unfit. I shall come to that point shortly in regard to Price Waterhouse, which refers to the B-type docker in severance situations—that is, those who cannot carry out the full duties of a docker and are restricted for medical reasons to doing certain light duties.
Generally, there is agreement that the money given to the National Dock Labour


Board covering severance payments and financed out of levies is normally covered by the voluntary scheme administered by the board under conditions agreed in the industry and laid down in the Acts. We question this wording because the construction could be placed upon it that we are departing from the voluntary scheme as it is presently applied under the national dock labour scheme. Here we are referring obviously to money that is given for extraordinary amounts of redundancies and severance payments.
Governments have intervened to a certain extent, with some exceptions—for example, in the PLA area. In the early 1970s money was given to the PLA primarily to deal with the special problems of the unattached pool. Since we are now talking about the surplus manpower problems of the PLA, it is well to bear in mind—it is recognised in the Price Waterhouse report—that the PLA had to take on an extraordinary share of the redundancies that occured from other employers going into bankruptcy. In agreements arrived at to reduce the unattached pool, and primarily because the PLA was the largest employer, the PLA took more than its share of the surplus labour to reduce the temporary unattached pool requirements.
That is why Price Waterhouse points out that, while the redundancies of 2,700 between 1975 and 1978 of the regular PLA labour force took place, the net effect in reducing its labour force was considerably less because it was taking on the labour from bankrupt dock operators. That is one of the extra burdens that the PLA had to take. Incidentally, it was not borne by private companies, which did not take anywhere near the same share as the PLA in sharing out the surplus labour from the temporary unattached pool, which in itself was an accumulation of surplus labour from a number of bankrupt private companies.
The other area in which Governments have intervened is in regard to able-bodied men. Here we draw particular attention to the A-type docker who is available and fully fit to do any kind of dock labour. But a number of dockers are registered as less fit and are available only for B-list working. They are commonly referred to, as in the Price Water-house report, as B-type dockers. Here the Government have normally requested in

formation to make sure that the money is going to certain areas where the voluntary scheme applies but does not direct how the money should be used.
Therefore, there are two relevant issues in this debate. The first is that this financial measure makes it absolutely clear that it is the Government's view, and the judgement of the Bill, that profitability of the PLA can be brought into being simply by reducing manpower. We reject that conclusion, but it is in the Government's mind—and in the Bill—that reduction of labour is the way to bring profitability to the PLA. We have explained in previous debates why we reject that approach.
12 midnight
The second area of concern is the heavy emphasis placed by the Price Waterhouse report on the manpower solution as the way to viability of the authority. In the manpower strategy identified by the Price Waterhouse report, the three options vary, in terms of the reduction in manpower requirements, from 2,100 to 4,700.
The report also deals with the age structure and points out that 72 per cent. of the work force are over 40, with most aged about 50 or 55. That is set out as though it is a particular problem of the PLA, but the National Dock Labour Board reports show that throughout the country an average of 68 per cent. of the dock labour force are over 40. I do not say that that is ideal. I hope that we can improve on it. The ideal would be to have younger people who are fit, and that consideration may be in the minds of port authorities.
The Price Waterhouse report also points out that there is a surplus of 230 B-registered men, those who are severely restricted on medical grounds, in the PLA.
The structure of the labour force, which has some over age, as Price Waterhouse would see it, and sick, is explained in the report:
 This situation has arisen as a result of a continued policy not to recruit and the present severance arrangements which do not allow any discretion to refuse severance applications from fit men with long service or to require the severance of old or unfit men.
We do not say that any dock authority would not desire a younger and more able labour force; that is a desirable objective,


But under present arrangements, decisions about voluntary severance are determined by the National Dock Labour Board. Recommendations are made about whether to give preference to less fit people when considering redundancy payments. Until now, it has been left to employers and employees, with recommendations from the NDLB on how the severance schemes will be implemented.
Is it the intention of the Ministry of Transport or the Department of Employment to intervene to bring about what they see as the desirable objective of a younger and fitter labour force? If so, that would be an intervention in the present arrangements and in management decisions. The Minister says that he has no desire to intervene in such decisions.
The Price Waterhouse report points to the manpower rundown as the solution, and in his press announcement on 7 December—one of many that I have received;
I do not complain about that, because I read them all—the Minister stated:
The Government can only agree to maintain the minimum level of financial assistance to the Authority that they will need to continue with the most rapid run-down of manpower".
If that means that influence is to be exercised over the areas to which money for redundancy and severance pay is to be given, that will be a major departure from the present arrangements. We propose to leave the situation in line with other legislation, namely, that the Treasury may consent to the terms of the financial arrangements but not influence the nature of the severance arrangements for which the Government will be providing money.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we are now dealing with that part of the Bill which concerns the payments to registered dock workers who take voluntary severance under the scheme administered by the National Dock Labour Board. Ordinarily, throughout the country, in every port, those payments are financed by levies charged on the port at varying rates. But the rundown of manpower has sometimes been faster than expected. The board has therefore not had the resources to make payments out of the port levies and the Government have had to step in

to assist. Indeed, in 1972 it was necessary to have a national scheme under which £30·5 million was disbursed to all ports in order to keep the National Dock Labour Board solvent to discharge its obligations.
What has happened, as we have said several times in the debate, is that there has been in recent years a particularly rapid rundown of registered dock workers in the PLA. The result is that since 1978 the Government have been reimbursing the National Dock Labour Board for severance payments to registered dock workers in London. The Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for the dock labour scheme and the National Dock Labour Board, and the practice has been that the Secretary of State has reimbursed the board for the payments it has made in London. On this basis, by the end of February 1980 £11·4 million had been paid to the National Dock Labour Board.
Those payments have already been made and the Port of London Authority now expects that future severance payments to registered dock workers can be met out of its port levy. So it is highly unlikely that any future payments will have to be made under this provision of the Bill. It is in the Bill only in case the situation recurs. What we are really doing here is legislating to give legitimacy to what has already been done, largely by the Labour Government.
The payments that have been made to the National Dock Labour Board have been subject to a number of conditions. I am not at all surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) would like clarification of the policy and would like to know exactly what those conditions are. I think I can reassure him entirely about their nature.
The main condition has been that severance should come within the terms of the national voluntary severance scheme. That is the scheme agreed between employers and employees' representatives whereby redundancy is voluntary for registered dock workers and no compulsory redundancy has been required. That is not a term of the agreement, but the port employers have undertaken that, and it has been made a condition of this reimbursement that the national voluntary severance scheme should be applied in


London. That is exactly the condition that the hon. Gentleman would wish to have and the reverse of what he feared, which was that this might be suspended.
The other conditions were a ban on recruitment and the maintenance of the port levy in London of 8 per cent.—both for obvious reasons. While the Government were standing behind the National Dock Labour Board in making these payments, it was obviously right that that rather high rate of levy should be maintained so that the maximum finance could come from the board itself. Eight per cent. applies in Liverpool, which has similar problems.
Therefore, from now on it is highly unlikely that any further payments will be made under the Bill. We are putting into proper legislative form the basis upon which the reimbursements have been made in the past and giving legitimacy to perfectly acceptable conditions which have already been imposed. It remains in the Bill in case this form of reimbursement has to be taken up again, and we would expect to put the same sort of conditions upon it.
I can give an undertaking that there will be no question of using the Bill to try to require the PLA to go outside the national voluntary severance scheme, which has been accepted for so long by both sides of the industry.
I shall not again go into the arguments about the concentration on manpower. It seems to us that that is the basis of financial viability. Although it is not the only problem facing the port, or the only judgment that should be applied to the port, it is the main one, and the main one on which the Government step in. If the port returns to normality, payments to registered dock workers will be financed out of port levy. Only voluntary severance will be sought.
There remains an open invitation to men who have become unfit—so-called category B men—to apply for severance. Current arrangements provide for enhanced basic severance payments for unfit men, and new measures have been introduced for rehabilitation assistance of various kinds, to try to ensure that more men can return from category B to the fit category.
I accept that, unfortunately, in the port of London and a number of other scheme ports the age of the registered dock work-

ers is very high. That inevitably reduces such ports' ability to handle their cargoes more efficiently and to improve their qualities of service for obvious natural physical reasons. That is an inevitable consequence of the national dock labour scheme.
If one relies on voluntary severance in particular, there is a tendency for younger and fitter men to take advantage of it, because they find it much easier to obtain alternative employment. The older men are therefore far less likely to seek voluntary severance, and it is almost impossible, within the scheme, for any employer to do anything to redress the balance of age and fitness of his work force. Many ports are left with an ageing work force and little opportunity to recruit new people to redress the balance.
However, that is a much wider issue than we need debate tonight. It is not one that the Government intend to seek to redress in this Bill by the back door. The scheme will be applied in the ordinary way in London. It will probably be financed in the ordinary way from now on. I hope that the conditions that have been applied in the past are wholly acceptable. That is the only kind of condition that we would impose in future if the occasion ever arose again.

Mr. Prescott: I accept everything that the Minister has said. It is a matter of judgment why the younger and fitter workers leave. It costs less, and it is good for those having to finance such funds, if the younger ones leave, but that causes the problems of the ageing work force to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
The levy schemes to which the hon. and learned Gentleman also referred maintain a standard of redundancy, health, training and treatment provision in the scheme ports that is a further penalty for them compared with non-scheme ports, as reports have shown. It is one of the penalties that the PLA, along with other scheme ports, has had to accept, and it affects the port's competitive position.
I note the Minister's point that most of the moneys have been paid. This reflects the conditions that were imposed, consistent with the National Dock Labour Board voluntary scheme. But the provision is in the Bill in case there may be further use of such a clause. Perhaps


the hon. Gentleman had Liverpool in mind. We shall wait and see.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 10, leave out '70' and insert '100'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we shall take amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 10, leave out
'£70 million' and insert '£50 million'.

Mr. Booth: The purpose of the amendment is to question the extent to which the Bill is a false financial prospectus—that is, to question whether it is possible, given the financial limit, to achieve the purpose even as defined in the long title. That is to provide the financial assistance necessary to carry out the measures for reducing the number of persons employed by the Port of London Authority and—as the Bill recognises in clause 1(1)(b)—
the carrying on of their undertaking while such measures are being taken.
It was acknowledged earlier in the debate that there are other considerations besides the severance problem that prevent the PLA from operating on a firm financial basis. It was not acknowledged by the Minister that some of those other considerations are financial, and that there will be other costs than severance costs in carrying through the five-year strategic plan until 1983.
12.15 am
It is agreed between us that, of the £70 million provided for in the Bill, £5 million is for the bank overdraft arrangement, £25 million is to continue support for the Lazard loan and £5 million is to cover inflation. Of the £35 million left for severance, £11·4 million has already been paid to the National Dock Labour Board, I believe that £7·6 million has already been paid to the PLA for non-registered staff who have left under severance arrangements and £16 million is left for remaining severance payments. I shall not argue whether that is adequate. I am prepared to accept the Minister's judgment if he says that it will cover the remaining severance during the period.
My serious point of argument is whether it is possible, given that that

meets the severance requirements, for the PLA between now and 1983 to achieve the objectives of the strategic plan which are also the objectives of the Government, in that it will enable the PLA to operate without this form of public assistance.
From a study of the PLA's financial position, it seems to me that between now and 1983, no matter how it improves its operating performance as a port authority, it cannot earn enough to cover the repayment of debts and the increase in interest charges. The 1978 accounts show approximately £7 million interest.
Between now and 1983 loans will fall due for repayment. Even if the capital is not repaid and arrangements are made under the Bill for the loans to be extended, the much higher rate of interest of 19 per cent. which now applies would add almost £5 million a year to the interest charges just to meet the Lazard loan extension. Inevitably, PLA will have to find money either for increased interest charges to extend loans which would otherwise fall due, or for the repayment of the loans. Either way, a major financial gap is not covered by the Bill.
PLA's assessment in its five-year stategic plan that some form of restructuring is necessary to enable it to return to viable operation is borne out by what has happened since. The report which was presented in June last year shows that this is a basic element of the total strategy. Paragraph 1.3.11 states that there is no realistic prospect of achieving the minimum cash flow objective by 1983 without capital reconstruction. In both the transfer and concentration options it will be necessary to effect a reconstruction of the PLA's capital in order to achieve viability by 1983. There is no qualification. Whichever course was chosen, that financial reconstruction would have been necessary.
The report states some of the reasons for that. It points out that the PLA had no equity capital, so was not able to enjoy the flexibility of bodies which had a fair proportion of their capital represented by equity. It points out that that has led to certain deteriorations, and it concludes that some capital reconstruction is therefore a vital prerequisite for PLA to return to commercial viability. It states that unless the debt burden from past losses can be relieved, improvements in working


practices will not bring about the financial objectives of the plan.
That is spelt out clearly in the report. The Minister could not have failed to notice it when he was considering the matter with a view to introducing the Bill. If I state the position briefly now, it is not because I do not attach importance to it. It may be the fundamental financial consideration on which the Bill will stand or fall in the test that history will apply. In two or three years someone will say either that the Bill was nonsense in the light of the known stated problems and objectives, or that the Government's judgment was right. I believe that the Minister realises that and that the Government rightly expect the PLA—the whole of its work force—to make a more efficient use of its improved port facilities, to bring about the best possible working practices, to indulge in first class marketing arrrangements of its port services, and to increase the earnings of the port.
The Government are right to expect that, and they are right to call upon the PLA to do that. However, they cannot expect that sort of response if they are setting an unrealistic and unrealisable financial target for the next three years of operation. Therefore, some arrangement must be made which will put before the PLA and its work force a realistic proposition—a way in which it can finance known debts or known increased interest charges. Provided that is done, the Minister will get the response he wants.
The Bill cannot rewrite the history of the Port of London Authority, and, in particular, it cannot rewrite that period in which there has been a fundamental change in the nature of dock work, which has had serious financial consequences for the authority. Those now working for the authority have learnt many of the lessons of this change, and they are capable of meeting the current needs of the port. By setting realistic and not impossible targets, and by facing known financial problems, the best result can be achieved—but only by doing it in that way.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It gives one an agreeable sense of power and influence to be able to decide at this time of night whether we should be committing £70 million or £100 million of

taxpayers' money. I wish to ask the Minister one brief question about the figure of £70 million. Does it cover any expenditure involved in the reorganisation of or reduction in the Port of London police force? The police are employees of the Port of London, but they are not registered dockers under the scheme. The House will be aware that the Port of London police have a major role to play.
A small number of men are entirely responsible for security in the Port of London Authority area. The number in the force has declined substantially in recent years. In the light of the problems of the ports and the docks and the role that the force has to play in ensuring protection against the smuggling of arms and drugs and illegal immigration, there is clearly a big job to be done.
I ask my right hon. Friend three specific questions. First, does the cash limit include any payment of compensation for reductions in PLA police numbers that may stem from reorganisation plans? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend believe that after the reorganisation, which will be completed in 1983, a viable police force will remain? Thirdly, will he be willing to consider procedures to enable PLA policement who may become surplus to requirements if a number of docks are closed to be transferred to the civilian force?
I have an interest in the police, but some years ago, when I represented a Glasgow constituency, I had the pleasure of being the adviser to the PLA police. I met members of the force and I have a great admiration for them.
Although those links have long since been broken, it would be unfortunate if the debate were to proceed without some reference being made to the future of an important and successful police force.

Mr. Ogden: I apologise to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) because I had ungenerous thoughts about him when he made his contribution and referred to the Port of London police. I thought that he would say that the next census will reveal that many port of London Policemen and women are living in Southend, near Southend or have friends and relatives in Southend.
I am tempted to think that the Minister will say that the money provided for


in the Bill will not be able to help directly in the way that the hon. Gentleman wishes. The fact that we are providing aid for the port of London has implications for other parts of the Port of London Authority's finances and for other ports.
Has the Minister had time between attending road haulage debates and various meetings throughout the country, which keep him pretty busy, to consider the implications of the Bill for other ports, not least the ports of the Mersey? My purpose is to support London Members in urging that help be given to the authority. However, the next step is to say "If that support is to be provided, the Minister of the day should consider its effect on other areas."
It is no use a Minister saying" This is directly for severance. The assistance has nothing to do with modernisation, port facilities or advertising." If an organisation is in financial trouble and it is helped to overcome any part of its financial difficulties, there must be a relationship between its operational costs and its finances.
The Minister gave a written answer on 22 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). He asked for two sets of figures. He wanted to know what financial assistance had been given to the port of London from 1970 to 1980 and to the ports of the Mersey, including the Mersey Docks and Harbour board. The Minister supplied two sets of figures. It would be easy merely to add the figures and to say that the port of London has received roughly £20 million between 1970 and 1980 and that the ports of the Mersey—the port of Liverpool—have received £16 million in the same period.
With respect, the Minister is not comparing like with like. We all accept that no two ports are the same. The list brought out certain points. During those 10 years, grants towards the modernisation of the port of London were just over £1·5 million. Grants towards staff severance payments were £7·5 million. The grant towards the severance payments of registered dock workers were just over £11 million.
The £16 million for the port of Liverpool was made up in a totally

different way. It received almost HUD million for port modernisation compared with London's £1·5 million. The port of Liverpool received an industry grant of £4·5 million. The port of London did not recieve that type of grant. The European Regional Development Fund gave £1·5 million to Liverpool, yet the port of London did not receive such a grant. Liverpool also receives a grant of £172,000 as a result of a railways provision. Any port authority with a railway is entitled to ask for such a grant. I do not know why the port of London does not receive one.
It is misleading to state that one authority gets £20 million while the other gets only £16 million. Like is not being compared with like.

Mr. Spearing: It should be put on record that I forgot to include the strange affair of the railways and the Royal docks. The PLA ripped out between 50 and 80 miles of railway line. It did not even do a Beeching: it took out the whole line. An argument arose between the PLA and British Railways about who should be responsible for delivering cargoes to ships by road.

Mr. Ogden: No doubt my hon. Friend could add other aspects to his list. Along with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, he is an expert on the PLA. I shall follow his advice. I hope that he will follow mine on ports on the Mersey.

Mr. Moate: Several Members who represent Liverpool constituencies have fought a valiant battle in favour of giving a better deal to Mersey ports. They have argued that, compared with London, such ports have been hard done by. However. I understand that about £15 million or £16 million has been invested in Mersey ports. Most of the money given to the PLA has gone towards severance pay. Does not that prove that Liverpool has done rather well out of subsidies in the long term? The case that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make, along with other hon. Members, is not sustained by his statistics.

Mr. Ogden: I would argue to the contrary. The Royal Seaforth docks are virtually new, and the majority of money was spent on modernisation. However,


the port of Liverpool is losing about £7 million a year. It is spending that amount on severance payments. The money comes out of its coffers and from port levies. A new port receives money. However, Merseyside will not be receiving the amount of money that this Bill seeks to give to the PLA for severance payments.
The fact that Merseyside may receive £20 million or that Glasgow may receive £15 million has no relevance to the needs of particular ports. If such a severance payment is made to one area, it will inevitably affect other aspects.
My choice is between the two amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is suggesting £70 million—and in transport terms this is an old model. The Labour Government's Bill was about two years in preparation. Those sums were designated or agreed three years ago. They should be increased. The Minister recognises that and includes £5 million for inflation. However, in true inflation terms it requires a great deal more. My hon. Friend suggests that that should be available for the port of London, and I am tempted to support him.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Gars-ton (Mr. Thornton) appears to be suggesting that if there are promises of help for Merseyside London will get only half. His difficulty is that £65 million of the £70 million in the Bill is already committed. If we support the hon. Gentleman's amendment and reduce the £70 million to £50 million, where will the other £20 million come from? That is clawback with a vengeance.
Those are the alternatives. I hope that the Minister can give us similar assurances to those given by his predecessor. The port of London requires help and support. It is not only a regional asset; it is a national asset. The ports of Merseyside, Hull and Glasgow, until we sort out our port problems on a national basis, are also in need of help. The Minister must recognise the problems by intervening. It is an interventionist Bill, but it is a limited Bill of limited intervention. The Government may say that they inherited the Bill from the Labour Government, but they inherited many things, 99 per cent. of which they have discarded.
The Minister must recognise that this measure decreases the competitiveness of other ports. They will need help, too.

Otherwise next year or the year after we shall require a Mersey Dock and Harbour Financial Assistance Bill, a Port of Manchester Ship Canal Financial Assistance Bill and so on. Unless we have rational support now, those measures will have to be undertaken piecemeal. I ask the Government not to bring forward proposals similar to those for the reorganisation of the old Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which was an absolute disaster.

Mr, David Alton: On Second Reading I raised questions similar to those raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden).
I do not wish to detain the Committee long at this hour, but I listened patiently to the speeches. I, too, wish to make a point on behalf of Liverpool. Those of us who represent that city find it strange when the logic of intervention for the port of London is argued but that logic is not extended to Liverpool. Many hon. Members do not appreciate the seriousness of unemployment in Liverpool. In the first few months of this year several hundred redundancies occurred in the docks and associated industries. Since lanuary we have lost over 2,000 jobs in Liverpool, and 9,000 in each of the previous two years. That has created more unemployment in the conurbation than in the entire principality of Wales or, indeed, in Ulster. We therefore reiterate our concern at money being pumped into the port of London, which will reduce the competitiveness of the port of Liverpool and threaten yet more jobs.
It would be churlish of me to suggest that aid should be withdrawn from the port of London. Far from it. I would be in difficulty in deciding which amendment to support if it came to a vote. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornlon) seems to suggest that the amount made available to the port of London should be reduced by £20 million, which would not solve any of our problems. The amendment has been moved almost on a think-of-a-figure basis. I have heard little justification for the sum of £100 million rather than £70 million.
I hope that the Government will accept the sincerity of hon. Members representing Liverpool constituents in putting their points of view on behalf


of their port. We have not so far this year been given the opportunity to debate the problems of that port and tonight has given us that opportunity.
The Minister will remember that his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) suggested, in a Private Member's Bill, that there was a need for free port status to be granted to the port of Liverpool. I remind him of that suggestion from the Government Benches and ask him whether any assistance is likely to be forthcoming from the Government for that suggestion in this Parliament. Equally, I also ask whether support is likely to be forthcoming—similar to that being given to the port of London—in the immediate future to dissipate some of the fears of those involved in industries associated with the port of Liverpool or the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: It is not my intention to waste the time of the House by restating the points made by hon. Members on both sides during the debate on Second Reading. However, I ask the Committee to consider the implications of this Bill for other ports and its relevance to a national ports policy. The only indication of such a policy seems to be the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading when he said:
 it is Government policy that ports in this country should compete freely with each other on the basis of price and service, without Government subsidy."—[Official Report, 16 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1380.]
That is laudable, non-interventionist stuff. The proposition in this Bill, however, runs contrary to that statement.
The factors leading to the problems facing the PLA are not confined solely to that port. All ports, to a greater or lesser degree, have been affected and it is, therefore, patently unfair that taxpayers' money should be used to give to one port a financial advantage which will work to the detriment of other ports, especially ports such as Liverpool, facing substantially the same basic problem of redundancy payments to registered dock workers.
Why do I say "to the detriment"? Leaving aside the issue of how subsidised Contintental competition affects our ports,

let us look at the British ports scene. For all the reasons enunciated by the Minister, trade patterns have changed and the number of ships has gone down. I can tell the Committee that I have experienced at first hand the dramatic changes that have taken place in the port of Liverpool.
Sad though this change is, it is a fact of life, and one with which all ports have had to come to terms. As shipping stands today, there is only a limited number of ships to go round. So one port's gain is another port's loss. This undeniably encourages ports to sharpen their competitive edge. Excellent internal transportation facilities enable shippers and ship owners to opt for temporary advantage at a particular port. This is particularly important when one considers the heavy costs that unnecessary delays or higher port charges bring.
In the present climate of "non-policy" towards our ports, individual ports accept the realities of life. But introduce a rogue element, an unfair advantage to one port, and immediately every other port is put at a grave disadvantage. Reference was made earlier to the statement by Sir Humphrey Browne in the British Transport Docks Board's report for 1979. Sir Humphrey said:
 The Board remain concerned about subsidies made available to other port authorities which enabled them to attract business on uneconomic terms. Subsidies undermine the basis of fair competition and lead to the retention of obsolete facilities which could not attract traffic at economic rates.
It is for this straightforward reason that I am opposed to this Bill. My message to the Minister is a simple one. He should stick to the policy which he set out on Second Reading, when he said:
 the Government basically believe that the ports in this country should operate in full competition with one another and meet the normal tests of commercial viability."—[Official Report, 16 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1314.]

12. 45 am

Mr. Ogden: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not want any Government aid for the ports of the Mersey, or only that he does not want any aid for the ports of the Mersey if nobody else gets it—everybody out or nobody out, that kind of thing?

Mr. Thornton: If the hon. Gentleman waits until I finish my speech, he will hear


what I have to say on that. On this question of financial aid, either give it to all, or do not give it at all. I think that that must be the message that I want to spell out.
I should like to conclude on the more general point that I mentioned earlier. There are much wider implications in the speeches of both my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends on Second Reading—implications that set alarm bells ringing. As well as the total inconsistency of the proposal in the Bill compared with their general view, the Government appear to have no long-term strategy for the ports of this island. I cannot accept that this is a sensible attitude for any British Government to take.
I conclude with the words of Mr. James Fitzpatrick, the managing director of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, in a recent speech at Rotterdam;
 To what degree should a nation accept responsibility for ensuring that their ports continue to provide those vital links with the rest the world?
In my opinion the United Kingdom has failed—or refused—to acknowledge its ports as an integral part of the country's transport system.
Irrespective of whether a Channel tunnel eventually links our island with the rest of Europe, bridges have already been built by the trade shipped between our ports. There will never be tunnels between the United Kingdom and the Americas or the People's Republic of China.
In the 1980s the British Government must accept its responsibilities.

Mr. Moate: The Bill proposes an expenditure in the form of a port subsidy of about £70 million, and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has moved an amendment that suggests that the figures should be increased to £100 million. It is a port subsidy, and I think we should acknowledge that this goes against the general philosophy outlined by my right hon. Friend and the general policy that the Government would wish to pursue.
To that extent, I have some sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thonrnton). One sympathises very much with the point that he makes, that all ports should be treated in the same way. What is right for one is right for another, and that point has been made by Liverpool Members during a number of debates on this subject. The answer that we

have to give is that this is an exception, and we have then to prove why it is an exception. But if it is an exception for this Government, equally one can point to the fact that it was an exception for the previous Government.

Mr. Ogden: We believed in it.

Mr. Moate: The Labour Government believed in it as an exception, and that is fair enough. Nevertheless, it was an exception, because exceptional support was proposed by the previous Government for the port of London which they were not proposing to give to the Mersey or to other ports. That is a simple proposition.

Mr. Prescott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Moate: I will, but I cannot see anything particularly controversial in what I have said.

Mr. Prescott: Except that there is a difference between the port of London's present financial crisis, or the one within the last 12 months, and the one that is coming for the port of Liverpool. It will be a matter for decision by the Government whether, when that crisis comes, they will treat both ports in the same way.

Mr. Moate: All right, but my general proposition remains correct, that we had an exceptional situation before, and that is what exists today, and no doubt judgments can be made later. At the moment we are talking about an exceptional situation. It is not one that I find attractive.
I do not agree with the proposition that even more money should be put into the port of London because that would be grossly unfair to other ports. I speak of private enterprise ports, nationalised ports, and municipal ports. It would be unfair to pour subsidies into the PLA and thereby place other ports at a disadvantage.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has used the word " subsidy " on a number of occasions, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton). I have in my hand a paper which shows that between 1967 and 1978 200 firms made 9,282 men redundant. The firms


were private and all the men were eligible for severance pay under the dock labour scheme. The Bill provides money for that rather than a subsidy for an ongoing commercial concern, which the PLA is not.

Mr. Moate: One can argue that social responsibilities are placed upon docks. Many docks have met and are meeting those responsibilities without any support. But the port of London has support. It is clear that London receives a subsidy which Merseyside does not receive. I am right to use the word " subsidy " in that context.
I dissent from the proposition that we should be led to the concept of a national port policy. It is suggested that there should be a long-term plan for the ports—a plan which would be devised by some powerful central body or worse, proposed by my right hon. Friend. He is a splendid Minister of Transport, but he cannot claim the wisdom of knowing what a ports policy should be. The consumer, customer and user of transport must, and will, decide the question of port and transport facilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gars-ton might see a long-term port strategy as benign, but the reverse might be true. We might have a strategy that is bureaucratic, reactionary and spendthrift—the reverse of what he would like to see in the long term for the ports. If we followed my hon. Frend's reasoning we should end up subsidising a great number of ports and we should not have the growth of highly efficent ports such as those at Southampton, Felixstowe and Medway. We must retain maximum flexibility and keep the Government out of ports policy as much as possible.
It is because of this general strategy—which I believe to be the right one—that I deeply regret the fact that we have before us a Bill that asks for £70 million worth of public money to support the port of London. I believe that other ports have a legitimate right of complaint.
This is exceptional because we know that the previous Government had already committed £42 million of that money without any specific parliamentary legislation. We know that that was done under the Appropriation Act—an undesirable

procedure—and is something that the present Government inherited. They also inherited a social situation in London in which, one way or another, that money would be spent. I believe, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends were absolutely right to do it in this way.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness argued the case for a financial reconstruction. He believes, and I think that there is some strength in his argument, that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Port of London Authority to have a long-term viable economic future without some kind of financial reconstruction. He has a case, but it is premature to argue that case because we are in a difficult trial period. Until we know whether the experiement with the Royal docks will work I do not think that we should go into the question of financial reconstruction.
If the right hon. Gentleman was really keen on a financial reconstruction perhaps the best way to achieve it would be to have no Bill at all and that the Port of London Authority should not have the £70 million. The result of that, of course, would be that the PLA would go into bankruptcy.

Mr. Ogden: It happened to Liverpool.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. Look what happened to Liverpool. But the net result of that would be that the PLA would have to write off its capital debt. That would achieve a financial reconstruction. Bankruptcies and liquidations seldom mean the total elimination of a business, but they do mean a financial reconstruction. Some other system is then found to maintain the remains of that business as a going concern.
If that is really what right hon. and hon. Gentleman are arguing for, it is an interesting proposition. That could have been achieved. Had we arrived with a clean slate—without any of the inherited obligations and commitments of the past—perhaps that is what we would be doing today. That would be fairer to Liverpool and to the other ports of this country. It would not mean the end of the London docks, but it would mean that the system would be started up again in an attempt to recreate a viable, modern docks system from the structure


of the past that was inherited by the Government. However, we are not faced with that situation.

Mr. Ogden: Great play has been made by the Minister—and by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), to whom I am listening with great care—of the fact that this is an obligation inherited from the last Labour Administration. My understanding with my Government 12 months ago was that they would bring in a Bill to provide financial assistance to the port of London and that at some later stage there would be propert recog-notion by that Government of the needs of other ports.
It was much easier in those days for a half a dozen or a dozen stroppy hon. Members to put the squeeze on a Government who had no majority. Conservative Members would all have voted against the port of London legislation then. I could have put the squeeze on my hon. Friends representing London constituencies and said that we looked for a guarantee of help for our ports from our Government. We would have been making a simple point. The obligation inherited by this Government was not simply this Bill. They inherited the obligation to recognise the needs of the other ports and to offer them some help.

Mr. Moate: That may have been the impression gained by the hon. Gentleman, but it was not the impression gained by those of us who were then listening to the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers). I suspect that had he still been in office—thank goodness that he is not—he would have been introducing roughly the same Bill, pursuing exactly the same strategy and backing up the decision of the PLA on the closure of the West India and Millwall docks and the desire to maintain the Royal group of docks. The strategy would have been the same and I think that the hon. Gentleman would be fighting a forlorn battle still to get support for the docks of his constituency.
This is an inherited obligation and the Government are carrying it through, as I believe that they must. The funds that have been committed are sufficient. It may be tight and it may be difficult, but that is the way it has to be and that is the way it should be. I think that there is

sufficient to make a go of the experiment with the Royal group of docks.
I am
I conclude with the point that I made on Second Reading. We are putting forward a terrible argument that this somehow is doomed to failure. We have talked over all the difficulties and problems. Yet I know that the hon. Member for New-ham, South (Mr. Spearing) would not want the message to go forth that Parliament thought that the Royals were doomed to close. This financial reconstruction is aimed at making a success of the Royals. None of us who were born and bred as Londoners want to see the enclosed docks disappear entirely. It would be a tragedy. One hopes that the Royals will succeed. The Government have adopted a certain strategy. We want to see that strategy succeed. I hope that the message will go out from this place that we see a fair chance of its succeeding and that is why £70 million—a large sum of public money—is being voted to this end.

Mr. Fowler: It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has put his finger on a number of the important issues which we face. I should like to come back later to what he said.
I should like to deal with one matter simply to dispose of it as rapidly as I can. That is the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on the position of the PLA police. The cost of severance of ports police is eligible for grant under clause 1(1), which deals with assistance to the PLA for staff severance. We understand that the conditions for severance of ports police are similar to those applying to other PLA staff. The average payment made under the ports staff severance scheme is about £12,000, though the amount payable in a particular case will depend on the circumstances.
That is the generality of the reply to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will allow me time to consider the detail and to give him a considered reply. However, I join him in paying tribute to the PLA police, with whom I have had a number of dealings and have met on several occasions. It is undoubtedly a first class, excellent force.
The Government are basically being attacked on two fronts. We are told, first, that the cash limit is too generous and, secondly, that it is not generous


enough. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said that the policy is unrealistic and unrealisable.
I remind the Committee that we inherited this commitment from the previous Labour Government and we are using their figures. I shall come later to the interesting point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden).
As I explained on Second Reading, our policy is to help the PLA to return to viability at least cost to the taxpayer. The financial limit that I announced on 7 December has therefore been set deliberately at the level of assistance promised by the previous Labour Government in July 1978, adjusted for inflation and the latest forecasts. Basically, I have told the PLA that it must achieve viability within this limit of £70 million. I have also made it clear that it is for the PLA, not the Government, to decide on the detailed steps required to achieve viability within this limit.
The assistance provided in the Bill is specifically directed towards the rundown of surplus manpower because that is the nub of the PLA's difficulties. I am not saying that it is the only difficulty from which the PLA suffers—that is clearly not the case—but it is certainly the major one. That was clearly recognised by the previous Labour Government because, as the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) told the House on 31 July 1978, the Labour Government were prepared to provide assistance towards severance costs, and then only provided that the PLA set in hand.
measures... to secure the most rapid possible rundown of surplus manpower."—[Official Report, 31 July 1978; Vol. 955, c. 169.]
They are not my words. They are the words—and, I assume, the policy—of the previous Government.
I recognise that some hon. Members would like to widen the scope of the Bill so that assistance can be given for purposes other than the rundown of surplus manpower, but there are two reasons why this is inappropriate. First, the £70 million in the Bill is the amount which is necessary to return the PLA to viability at least cost to the taxpayer. The PLA and hon. Members have been informed of the form of the assistance and the purpose for which it is being given, and that is what is spelt out in the Bill.
Secondly, it is necessary that assistance be directed at reducing surplus manpower, which is, I repeat, clearly the overriding obstacle to the recovery of the profitability of the PLA.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness stated the breakdown of the £70 million financial limit—basically correctly. To the £35 million promised by the previous Government in 1978 we have added £5 million for inflation. Of that total, £19 million has been paid already—£11·4 million for registered dock workers and £7·6 million for staff. As for the £25 million backing for the commercial loan, the majority of that has already been taken up by the PLA. The previous Government undertook to stand behind both of these loans, and that is an obligation which, again, we have recognised. We have also backed the overdraft facility of £5 million, which has not yet been taken up by the PLA. This undertaking was given by the present Government in the light of the latest forecast.
Therefore, of the £70 million, £60 million was directly promised by the previous Government, and £42 million of the total of £70 million of Government assistance provided for in the Bill has already been taken up.
As to the amendments, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton)—I shall come shortly to his point about Liverpool and Mersey—that it seems to me that to suggest, as his amendment does, that £50 million is the right figure that we should put in the Bill would mean putting in a sum that would not be sufficient to meet the purposes for the recovery of the PLA. As I made clear in the statement on 7 December, the Government are honouring an obligation inherited from the Labour Government to provide £35 million in grants and backing for £25 million in commercial loans. That is what we are doing—no more and no less. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham talks about an " inherited obligation " and he talks about this as being " exceptional." That is absolutely right—it is an inherited obligation.
I am attacked on the other side by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who seeks to change the limit of Government assistance at any one time


from £70 million to £100 million. In other words, he wants to increase it very substantially. I have to say once more that we are picking up the obligation that we have been given. We are also saying that we can agree only to maintain the minimum level of financial assistance to the PLA that it will need to continue with the most rapid rundown of manpower and to plan for the quickest possible return to viability at least cost to the taxpayer. But I do not believe that we should be justified in going beyond the £70 million which we have had an obligation to meet.
The hon. Member for West Derby said that in addition to the £70 million obligation that we are recognising, the previous Government also stated that they were prepared to accept further obligations to other ports.

Mr. Ogden: I did not say that they stated that. There was a clear understanding on the Labour Benches, and particularly among Merseyside Members, that assistance to the PLA would go through with no bother, but that if that did not carry with it an understanding that there would be further aid, in other ways, for the Mersey ports and others, the Port of London Bill would not go through.

Mr. Fowler: I do not know where that understanding comes from. There may have been an understanding reached behind closed doors with the Labour Government, but it was never made public and the policy of the previous Government cannot be rewritten on the basis of understandings that were never made public, let alone announced to the House, by the then Secretary of State. If the hon. Member can point out to me any such public statement, I shall be obliged. I shall also be surprised.
I have known the hon. Member for West Derby for a long time and I respect him. I understand his concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company approached me last year for financial assistance to help to meet its severance costs, on the same lines as the aid being given to the PLA. I said that I was not prepared to make grants available towards severance

costs but that I would continue, and indeed increase, the normal assistance by way of loans under the Harbours Act 1964 towards capital development. That was on the understanding that the company would take remedial action to reduce costs and to increase revenues.
Towards the end of last year, the company approached me again, saying that it was expecting a trading loss in 1979 of about £2 million and was concerned about the position in 1980. I therefore invited the National Ports Council to carry out a rapid study of the company's forecasts and that showed that there were a number of ways in which the company could improve its financial position, primarily by a faster rate of manpower rundown and by some increases in traffic.
The company has accepted that those improvements are feasible and has undertaken to put them into effect. It has also agreed to carry out a much more far-reaching study of all aspects of its business, with a view to drawing up a new profitability plan, again with the aid of the NPC.
The results of the study, which is still going on, should become available in the summer. As the chairman of the company recently announced in the press, the study will cover, among other things, the adequacy of the financial resources likely to be available for the future operations of the company. It will discuss that matter with me. The studies and the discussions that the company is to have with me do not involve any prior assumption on whether the company needs any additional external financial assistance in addition to that which is already available or on the source of that assistance.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it would not be helpful for me to speculate about the likely outcome of the current studies or about what attitude I shall take in discussions with the company. However, I have a good deal of faith in the ability of the company to continue actively with policies designed to improve its financial position. I was encouraged to read what the chairman said about the successes already achieved in reducing labour costs—he mentioned total savings from those and other economies of about £7 million a year—and about the continuing efforts that the company is making and which


the chairman believes must have benefits for the future of the port.
1.15 am
I do not believe that it is helpful, however strongly hon. Members may feel, to talk the port of London into a crisis.
The Government believe that the essential basis for any decision about the future of Liverpool or indeed any other port is the best possible information about the future and what can be done by way of self-help to put things right. This is what we expect to get from the studies in the summer. Clearly we will continue to keep the situation under close and strict examination, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and to hon. Gentlemen that I think that at this stage their approaches are, not to put it any more strongly, premature.
As for the general policy of the Government on ports, let me make it absolutely clear that we believe in free and fair competition between ports. The issue as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham has said, as far as the port of London is concerned is exceptional and I shall not seek to go over that again. But let us remember what the last Government said about this. I will quote what my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Stockton, said:
As for the future, nobody can forecast the extent of world trade. Nobody can forecast the share of it coming to Britain which the PLA may secure.
I should like the Port of London to have viable, stable and prosperous future. But the future of the port"—
and this is what I think is important—
lies with all who work in it, and they will decide whether the Royal docks and the other docks stay open for a matter of months, a matter of years or for a very long time ahead."—[Official Report, 2 August 1978; Vol. 955, c. 746.]
I think that that is right.

Mr. Ogden: We have heard that quotation before.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman may have heard it before, but it does not seem to have made much impression upon him.

Mr. Prescott: I answered it.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman may have answered it, but I should be most

surprised if he had answered anything as sensible as that on his own policy on ports.
That, it seems to me, expresses the kernel of the problem. It is, as I believe and the Government believe, not right to look to the Government continually for assistance and help. It seems to me that what the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Government said on this matter is right. I do not believe that the Committee would be justified in taking the advice of the Opposition Front Bench and raising from £70 million to £100 million the cash limit for the port of London. Nor do I believe that we would be justified in going back on the commitment that we have inherited and reducing that £70 million to £50 million. I believe that the cash limit that we have set is a fair one, and it recognises the responsibilities of this Government. I ask the House to reject both the amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ogden: We were discussing two amendments and I thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) had asked leave to move his amendment.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The hon. Member has not asked for a separate Division upon it, and we have passed it anyway.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 2, line 26, after 'London', insert 'Authority'.
As this is the last amendment, perhaps I shall have better luck with it.
The short title says:
This Act may be cited as the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980.
For reasons that I have made abundantly clear both on Second Reading and in Committee, I believe that that is misleading, and that it should read "Port of London Authority (Financial Assistance) Act".


I do not think that I need give further reasons. I believe that that would more accurately describe the Bill's contents. It would, perhaps, draw attention to the fact that the port of London is not the Port of London Authority, and that would be better for all concerned.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I acknowledge the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point. I appreciate that the port of London is not the same as the Port of London Authority. The hon. Gentleman has done a service to point out that there is a great deal of traffic within the port of London that is not handled by the authority. But that should not affect the title of the Bill. There is a very good technical reason why it would be wrong, and a misdescription of the Bill, to insert the word "Authority", as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The limitation of the title to the PLA would mean that it did not cover clause 1(3), which is about the reimbursement by the Secretary of State for Employment to the National Dock Labour Board. It is important that we give proper legitimacy to the payments that have been made to the board to reimburse it for severance payments to registered dock workers in the port of London. If the title were restricted, as the amendment proposes, it would imply that the authority was the only public body able to receive financial assistance under the Bill. The board must be considered, and for

that reason the broader title has been chosen.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the title is technically correct. It does not mean that we have ignored his reminder that there are activities going on within the port of London other than those conducted by the authority. It would be inaccurate too to make the amendment, which would misdescribe an important provision of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for that technical explanation, which I understand and accept. He referred to clause 1(3). I may not have heard the amounts related to payments to the National Dock Labour Board, which is not then in respect of employees of the PLA, or those whom it inherited. I have no doubt that there are a few, and therefore I think that the Minister is technically correct, although once again, for reasons of a quirk of history, people will no doubt equate one with the other, because most of the moneys go via the accounts of the PLA, and most of the rest of the Bill applies to it.
But, because of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an amendment; read the Third time and passed.

LOCAL LOANS (INCREASE OF LIMIT)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I beg to move.
That the draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 1 May, be approved.
Although this is the first such order under the provisions of the Finance Act 1978, it succeeds previous orders under the provisions of the Finance Act 1975. Regular attenders of these debates will be aware that the order does not itself sanction any increase in local authority capital spending. Capital expenditure by local authorites is controlled by the Government in various other ways, and the proposal in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill now before the House will further tighten that control.
The order, therefore, does not affect public expenditure in any way, nor does it affect the public sector borrowing requirement. It affects simply the extent to which local authorities borrow from the Government via the Public Works Loan Board rather than from the markets.
I think the whole House will join me in expressing thanks to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the services they render with such skill and dedication on an entirely voluntary basis, and also to the entire staff of the Public Works Loan Board.
As a sensible move of rationalisation introduced by the Government which will result in staff savings and various economies, the Public Works Loan Board has been merged effectively with the National Debt Office to form the National Investment and Loan Office. That is the main burden of the order, and I commend it to the House. I shall be happy to answer any questions which the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) cares to put.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I join the tribute paid by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's introduction, I wonder why the order has been introduced at all. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will explain exactly what is proposed. At 1.30 a.m. we are proposing to increase by £3,000 million

the amount of money that can be spent by the Public Works Loan Board.
Under section 78 of the Finance Act 1978 the amount provided by the Labour Government was £3,000 million, with provision to increase it by not more than £3,000 million by affirmative resolution of the House. The maximum amount of £3,000 million has been taken by the Government, effectively doubling the amount of money that the Board is allowed to spend. The figure under the 1975 Act—it was an Act, not an order—was £2,000 million. That was increased to £3,000 million in 1978. Conservative Members may also be interested to know that under the Finance Act 1972—when a Conservative Government were in office—the figure was £1,000 million. That figure was increased to £2,000 million in 1975. The figure of £1,000 million at that time covered moneys from the Public Works Loan Board, but it also included water undertakings. A separate order increasing the limits for water undertakings was introduced by the Government in January this year which was approved. In 1972, water undertakings were the responsibility of local government.
The Financial Secretary says that this does not affect the public sector borrowing requirement, that in any case local authorities will be pinned down by the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, and that if the Government did not get the increase this way, they could get it in some other way from the market. Nevertheless, a further explanation is needed from the Government—given their stance on monetary policy—as to how they can justify asking the House for an increase of £3,000 million in this manner.
We have spent many hours tonight discussing £70 million for the Port of London Authority. We are now discussing £3,000 million very late at night. The purpose of the Acts of 1972, 1975 and 1978, introduced by successive Governments by affirmative order procedure, was that these matters could and should be debated by the House. It is unfair of the Government to bring an order of this nature, under affirmative order procedure, before the House at this time of night, when it deserves and merits a full debate.

Mr. Roger Moate: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why,


if this is an order that increases the public sector borrowing requirement by £3,000 million—I find it difficult to believe that the order does that—he is the sole hon. Member on the Labour Benches? I cannot believe that, if it were as serious as he suggests, he would be there on his own.

Mr. Oakes: If the hon. Gentleman will read the order, he will see that what I say is correct. It raises the limits on the amount of money that can be expended by the Public Works Loan Board from £3,000 million to £6,000 million. I am the solitary hon. Member on this side of the House because the Opposition are not opposing the order. However, I should like the Financial Secretary to expand further his remarks about the effects of the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill that we are currently debating in Committee. Part VIII of that Bill, particularly clause 51 places the most severe constraints on local authorities, in that they will be given a certain amount of money for capital expenditure. The Government have said that, within that limit, the local authorities can spend the money as they wish.
I ask the Financial Secretary what we are debating tonight. It is no use him saying that the Government want an increase of £3,000 million for the Public Works Loan Board, and then trying to placate his hon. Friends by saying that even though the extension of the limits is granted, under the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, the local authorities will be severely constrained as to the amount of money that they can borrow.
What is this all about? Why was the order introduced in such a way? I agree that sanction is given in the Finance Act 1978, but would it not have been better to insert a suitable clause in the Finance Bill that we shall soon be debating? There was no order in 1979. There may have been orders between 1972 and 1975 and 1975 and 1978 because power was given to the Government of the day to act in that way. However, in 1972, 1975 and 1978 there was a clause in the Finance Bill. That is a far more debatable procedure than even an affirmative resolution. The three-yearly cycle means that next year we shall be due for a clause to appear in the Finance Bill.
I do not think that an order involving £3,000 million should go through the House undiscussed and undebated. I should like to know from the Financial Secretary in somewhat greater detail how the Government intend to operate clause 51, part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill in the light of the order. I hope that he will spell that out, for local authorities especially.

Mr. Lawson: I am happy to answer the questions of the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). If he considers the order to be of some importance, as he professes, he might have taken the trouble to do his homework, which he has manifestly not done. He says that the local authorities would like some guidance. It is clear that the authorities know a great deal more about this than he does.
The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that we are taking the maximum available under the Finance Act 1978, which was enacted by the Labour Government of which he was a member. That is not true. The 1978 Act enabled the £3,000 million of Public Works Loan Board lending to be taken at once followed by three further tranches of £3,000 million. We are concerned only with the first of those tranches. There is power under the legislation passed by the Labour Government for two further tranches.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what happened between 1975 and 1978. I shall tell him. The Finance Act 1975, which was enacted by a Government of which he was a member, similarly gave power for several tranches of £2,000 million. The right hon. Gentleman's Government took the first tranche of £2,000 million in 1975, a further £2,000 million in 1976 and another £2,000 million in 1977. They went for the last tranche of £2,000 million again in 1977 and for £3,000 million in 1978. There were five increases of the limit between 1975 and 1978 whereas this is the first in the two years from 1978. I hope that it will be well over a year before we seek an increase.
The right hon. Gentleman complained about the timing of the debate, which I welcome no more than he does. However, I took part in the previous debate—I do not think that he did, so he is new to the order—and that took place well


after midnight. There has been a custom for the orders to be taken well after midnight. The pressure of parliamentary business is an inescapable fact. The timing of the debate is not something that I welcome but it is not something that the right hon. Gentleman should throw at the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was surprised that a Government who are so concerned about monetary control should introduce such a measure. In so far as there is a shift from local authorities' borrowing from banks to borrowing from the board, that can assist monetary control. It is therefore fully consistent with our policy.
The right hon. Gentleman may have been misled, because our parliamentary procedure is rather unsatisfactory and misleading. Increases in borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board do not influence the total amount of local government borrowing. They have less influence on local government expenditure. However, those increases represent gross amounts. As well as borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board, local authorities repay those sums. The net amount of borrowing in economic and monetary terms is not measured by the current procedure.
The legislation provides that gross new borrowing should be controlled. That is a fact of life that has obtained for some time. Over a period of years, local government borrowing will increase. Total Government borrowing also increases, because there is a positive borrowing requirement each year. It is our firm policy—unlike the previous Labour Government—to bring that borrowing requirement down progressively. We wish to see it reduced from its present level of about 3¾ per cent. of gross domestic product, to about 1½ per cent. of gross domestic product in 1983–84. I assure the House that this proposal is fully consistent with that overall policy and strategy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.—[Mr. Berry.]

HAREFIELD HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am grateful—even at 1.41 am—for having been given an opportunity to acquaint the House with the serious threat being posed to the future of the cardiac surgery unit at Harefield hospital, in my constituency.
The future of advanced cardiac surgery, including heart transplants, is in doubt. The recommendations of the London Health Planning Consortium will shortly be considered by the North-West Thames regional health authority, and subsequently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The consortium's terms of reference are as follows:
 to identify planning issues relating to health services and clinical teaching in London as a whole; to decide how, by whom and with what priority they should be studied; to evaluate planning options and to make recommendations to other bodies as appropriate, and to recommend means of co-ordinating planning by health and academic authorities in London.
In short, the consortium comprises a group of planners par excellence. As such, paragraph 94 of its report of October 1979, recognises:
In our view, no more paediatric cardiac surgery should be carried out at Harefield. This work should be transferred to one of the three designated paediatric cardiac centres.
We are also of the opinion too, that there would be clear advantages in the transfer of the adult work to a general teaching hospital elsewhere in the region.
The possible hospitals referred to, include Hammersmith, Charing Cross, The National Heart, Northwick Park, the Middlesex, St. Mary's and the Westminster.
It is the proposed termination of both paediatric and adult cardiac surgery at Harefield hospital that has aroused intense opposition, not only from the medical staff committee, but from thousands of my constituents. It has also aroused intense opposition among the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—who is in the Chamber—the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), who are also in the Chamber at this late hour.
Public attention has been focused on this matter because, if the consortium's recommendations are approved, it will also mean the end of heart transplant surgery at Harefield. To my constituents and many thousands of well-wishers in Britain and overseas, the closure of the cardiac unit is unthinkable. It has, after all, attracted massive private donations, exceeding £320,000, which is over three times the amount recently allocated from public funds by my right hon. Friend for heart transplants at Papworth hospital.
The reason for the substantial public support for cardiac surgery at Harefield is the existence of one of the world's finest medical teams, led by Mr. Magdi Yacoub, who enjoys a world-wide reputation for excellence in that field. That reputation has been built up steadily over the years, during which Harefield has been carrying out cardiac and thoracic surgery and coronary angiography. Such a team of doctors, nurses and therapeutic staff simply cannot be built up at will, nor can it be moved around from one hospital to another to comply with a neat and tidy plan.
In the words of the hospital medical staff in a recent memorandum commenting on the consortium's report:
 The peculiar genius which inspires the team in a demanding specialty such as cardiac surgery cannot be uprooted and expected to flourish elsewhere. The Harefield team feel that talk of transplanting this excellence to other hospitals is simply a euphemism for its destruction.
Harefield is a centre of excellence in the art, of wordwide repute. Its sense of purpose has meant that its industrial relations and its service to the public is likewise excellent. Its results with patients and its cost-effectiveness are unsurpassed.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that his comments also apply to Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency? He and I attended a public meeting in my constituency at which the future of cardiac surgery at Harefield and the future of the radio therapy department of Mount Vernon were raised, both of which are under threat from the planning consortium. That consortium has produced

some pretty daft recommendations, including that for the Westminster hospital, which we were discussing only a few days ago.

Mr. Shersby: I agree that Mount Vernon is very important in the scheme of things. I am happy to support my hon. Friend in maintaining that important hospital.
The medical staff committee memorandum continued:
It has the space and ability to expand. Its location is convenient. The quality of its treatment and the quiet peace of its surroundings outweighed all other considerations.
That is a different picture from that which may be seen by the medical staff at other hospitals to which it is recommended this type of surgery should be transferred.
Perhaps they, and may be the Health Service planners, see Harefield as an unfashionable suburban hospital, which has recently sprung to prominence and which is threatening famous London teaching hospitals. If anyone thinks that, I assure them that they are wrong. Harefield is not a suburban area. It is a lovely village, separated by two and a half miles of green belt from its neighbouring community, but it is very easy to get to. It is only 18 miles from central London, three miles from the A40-M40 motorway, about six miles from the M4 and Ml and within easy reach of Heathrow and Northolt airports. It also has British Rail access at Denham and Watford.
Nor is Harefield's reputation for cardiac surgery threatening any other hospital, although I can quite understand that some doctors see the advanced heart transplant surgery that follows aortic valve and coronary bypass surgery as the new" cutting edge "of modern medicine, and they naturally want to see it carried out at their hospital. So I believe it is being argued in the corridors of medical power that this surgery should be carried out in what is called an advanced technological environment rather than in a fairly simple yet relatively modern hospital such as Harefield, whose recent fame results, as I have said, from the brilliance of Mr. Yacoub and his superb team.
Perhaps those who argue thus also forget that this reputation has been built up over the years since Sir Thomas Holmes Sellers, who later became president of the Royal College of Surgeons, did the


first closed heart surgery at Harefield in the 1960s. Before that, Harefield was the country's leading tuberculosis hospital and has been a major cardiothoracic centre since 1939. It commenced caring for the sick after Gallipoli, when Australian and New Zealand Service men were treated there. It has a long, impressive and honourable history.
Harefield does not accept the unproven assertion of the consortium of the supposed need in cardiac surgery for the supporting services of a general hospital. Although Harefield has a district general hospital within two miles it has seldom needed its services. Harefield has a general paediatrician, a nephrologist, vascular and general surgeons, dentistry and all the usual medical disciplines. None of the four major hospitals in London not sited in a general hospital has felt the need to have the services of a large hospital on hand at all times.
I hope that my hon. Friend is aware that Dr. Shumway, one of America's leading heart transplant surgeons, does not have at his hospital certain sophisticated facilities—immunology for example—but, as with Harefield, they are available nearby and can be used without difficulty. Harefield uses the immunology facilities at Northwick Park hospital, which is only 20 minutes distant.
Recurrent themes in the consortium's report are that cardiology and cardiac surgery, should, as a matter of course, be carried out in the context of the general hospital, and still more desirably, in a teaching hospital. Yet there is no evidence in the report to show that cardiac centres so located perform better than those which are not. On the contrary, the available evidence suggests otherwise. The leaning towards relocation of units in undergraduate hospitals is highly significant and may well spring from the special interest of the authors of the planning consortium's report, nearly all of whose practising members are on the staff of teaching hospitals.
The staff at Harefield feel that from the point of view of service to the patients, teaching should be a subordinate and not a dominant consideration. Why should it be the surgeons and their support team, and patients, who move? Is it not possible for the students to do

a little travelling to them? Harefield is, after all, not at the end of the world. In teaching hospitals, severe competition from other major specialties understandably places a limit on the development of excellence.
The argument that cardiac centres not located in general or teaching hospitals suffer from the lack of appropriate services and academic influence is not supported by any evidence in the planning consortium's report. Indeed, it is positively contra-indicated by evidence of their throughput and the quality of their worldwide contribution to the state of the art. There are numerous informal links between Harefield and post-graduate teaching centres as well as formal links with teaching hospitals. There are also four or five research grants and a number of research fellows as well as attached fellows from overseas.
Each year Harefield plans an advanced course in echo cardiography attended by United Kingdom and overseas students. There is also a special course in chest physiotherapy in addition to a Joint Board of Clinical Nursing Studies postgraduate cardiothoracic nursing course. Harefield is, beyond argument, a hospital of secondary referrals. There is no evidence, therefore, that children treated in cardiac centres not located in paediatric centres fare less well.
If adult and paediatric divisions of the speciality are to be torn apart for the sake of planned tidiness, there should be evidence—hard evidence—to show that the children will benefit. There is no such evidence. Some of the best and most innovative cardiac surgery for children has been achieved in centres which do both adult and paediatric surgery. An operation to transpose the great vessels in children was pioneered at Harefield, where adult and paediatric surgery have always been done together.
I should like to conclude my remarks by quoting from the memorandum which the medical staff have prepared on this subject. They say:
 But it is not only money and convenience which will be lost by the urge to absorb (and, one supposes, to benefit by digesting) a centre of excellence. The excellence itself will be lost. The consortium seem not to have any conception of how diverse the team in a cardiac centre really is. It is not only a question of competent surgeons. There are also


competent cardiologists, anaesthetists, radiologists, pathologists, theatre sisters, ITU sisters, cardiac ward sisters, physiotherapists, pump operators, cardiology, physiology and pathology technicians and ODAs, all of whose expertise is specially orientated towards cardiac surgery. These people all live round about Harefield and have their roots, their friends and their children's friends and schools in the countryside. They are particularly well-integrated at Harefield. Harefield has excellent industrial relations. They will not be willing to uproot themselves and their families to migrate to parts of London, to satisfy some plan. This organic growth cannot just be torn apart into sub-divisions and transplanted to satisfy some sterile logic. What is proposed will, in execution, be the destruction of Harefield as a centre of excellence in the particular discipline, in favour of a tidier plan. This truth needs to be faced: and having been faced, it needs to be justified with good reasons.
I have yet to find them in the consortium's report.
I feel thereby that my job as the elected representative of the people is to make these views and facts known to Parliament. It is my contribution, if one likes, to the consultative process which I hope will be considered by the regional health authority and by my right hon. Friend. I shall shortly present a large petition to Parliament in support of these views.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend to have regard to the excellence of the people at Harefield rather than the desire of the planners for a neat and tidy plan. Above all, I ask my hon. Friend for a quick decision after the matter has been considered by the regional health authority so that the sense of uncertainty can be ended, because it is already undermining the confidence of those who heal the sick in this very fine hospital.

The Under-Secretary of Slate for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I should like to say at the outset that I fully understand the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has expressed so eloquently, as one would expect from him, about the future of cardiac surgery at Harefield hospital.
A number of hon. Members from both sides of the House have written to me, to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We have had letters from patients and members of staff, past and present. So we are keenly aware that there is widespread concern

about this and that this unit commands affection and support throughout the country. I accept entirely what my hon. Friend said about the need for a quick decision.
I should like to make it clear before going any further that no decision has been taken to remove cardiac surgery from Harefield hospital. The report which suggested this is out for consultation. It has been circulated widely and is being discussed by health authorities, community health councils and others with an interest. We shall have to see, in the first instance, what the Hillingdon area health authority and, in its turn, the North-West Thames regional health authority have to say about it. The proposal arises from the report of a study group which was set up by the London Health Planning Consortium. The consortium was itself set up by our predecessors in 1978 by the main authorities concerned with the Health Service in London. Its job is to look at major planning issues which affect London, or the Thames regions, as a whole.
One of the major problems which concerned the consortium was the planning of the main regional specialties. One of its priorities was to look at the distribution of these services across the Thames regions. In many cases units have been built up by different authorities over the years, almost in competition with one another. Many are small. Others, not always the smaller ones, have grown up in older, smaller hospitals in relative isolation from other specialties and some of them have built up distinguished reputations. In many cases health authorities are finding it difficult to fund and support these long-established units.
To look into the problem of the regional specialties, the consortium set up five independent study groups. Each of the groups comprised eminent clinicians and specialists, who were asked to take, as far as possible, a detached view and to present proposals for achieving the best distribution of services across the Thames regions as a whole. All the reports have been completed and are the subject of consultation. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. It is, of course, the report on cardiology and cardiac surgery which is important to Harefield hospital.


My hon. Friend gave much history about Harefield which I shall not repeat. Harefield is a comparatively small hospital of some 300 beds, under the control of the Hillingdon area health authority, which is a single-district area. About half the beds are allocated to chest medicine and surgery. The rest of the beds are devoted to local general and acute services, such as general medicine and surgery, geriatrics and traumatic and orthopaedic surgery.
Cardiac surgery is a comparatively young specialty, developing out of chest surgery. In the early stages cardiac surgery was confined to procedures which could be undertaken while the heart was still beating. But the introduction of the heart-lung machine, enabling surgeons to perform "open-heart" surgery, opened the door to dramatic developments. Valves weakened by rheumatic fever or degenerative disease could be replaced. Gross congenital defects could be corrected, and over the years this has been done in the case of ever younger patients so that neonatal cardiac surgery is now a recognised sub-specialty. More recently, there has been an increasing number of operations to bypass narrowed coronary arteries. We have had a number of successful transplants, a subject to which I shall return later.
Harefield hospital as my hon. Friend said has been at the forefront of all these developments. Over the last 10 years this has been because Harefield has had the services of one of the world's outstanding cardiac surgeons—Mr. Magdi Yacoub. In paying tribute to him I should also pay tribute to the staff at Harefield who support him—the cardiologists, the anaesthetists, the devoted nursing staff—and to the tradition he inherited. The result is that Harefield now draws patients for cardiac surgery from a very wide area—all over the Thames regions and beyond. In paediatric work it is an international centre.
The London health planning consortium was not just concerned with Harefield, or with the Hillingdon area or the North-West Thames region. The group did, in fact, visit 18 hospitals where cardiac surgery is practised. It was looking at the scene across the whole of London. As a matter of deliberate policy the group decided to visit first, so that it would have no preconceptions, and then to weigh up

the evidence not only of what it had seen and heard but of the views of professional bodies on how cardiac services should be organised.
The group visited Harefield in October 1978, when it met Mr. Yacoub, the senior cardiologist, Dr. Malcolm Towers, and many other members of staff including nursing staff. It also saw round the hospital. Immediately after the visit it wrote to the staff saying how impressed it was with the service provided. I make this point to stress that nothing in its report should be taken as a criticism of the staff there or as a reflection on the standing and tradition of Harefield as a cardiac centre.
However, it noted that some of the facilities were under intense pressure, although I understand there has been some upgrading since, and that with only one part-time cardiac surgeon waiting times for surgery were long and increasing. In some cases this meant that after cardiac catheterisation—the investigation which almost always precedes heart surgery—some patients were being referred elsewhere for their operations, which is disruptive and distressing for doctor and patient alike. It also found that there were serious problems in nurse recruitment.
When the study group came to draw up criteria for its recommendations it took into account not only what it had seen and heard but also two reports published while it was at work from bodies representing the views of the medical profession on how cardiac services should be organised. The joint committee on cardiology of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons made a number of recommendations on how large units should be and what supporting services they should have. It also recommended that a cardiac unit should be sited in association with a general hospital because of the undisputed value of remaining in close contact with other medical and surgical disciplines.
This recommendation was mirrored by one from the British Paediatric Association to the effect that paediatric cardiac work should be concentrated in a few large units where other paediatric specialities are available on site. During its visits the study group came to the conclusion that there were considerable advantages to patients and staff in the


location of cardiac units in general teaching hospitals.
It found that such hospitals could most easily provide the wide range of sophisticated support facilities which modern techniques in cardiac catheterisation and surgery demand, and were less constrained by shortage of key staff in important support services such as anaesthetics, radiology, and specialist nursing services. It found, too, that there was wide support for the view that cardiac services benefit from being in close contact with the range of specialties which are available in a large general hospital.
As far as the paediatric work is concerned the group accepted the view of the British Paediatric Association that this is the best practised in the context of other paediatric specialties. It noted that some general teaching hospitals in the region had only small cardiac units but either had under-used facilities which, if fully used, would enable them to expand, or were envisaging such facilities being provided as part of a planned redevelopment. The group decided that, because considerable investment at Hare-field, both in terms of staffing and facilities, would in any event be necessary to put the unit there on to a secure footing for the future, it would be better for patients and staff alike for this investment to be used to relocate the service within a general teaching hospital elsewhere in the region.
The group proposed that the adult work be relocated, as my hon. Friend said, at either Charing Cross hospital or, if that were not found to be possible, at St. Mary's as part of the planned redevelopment there. It recommended that the paediatric work be transferred to one of three centres designated to specialise in this field. Once the consortium has reached its own conclusions it will be for the responsible health authorities or, if necessary, Ministers to take decisions about their implementation. In some cases it will not affect more than one authority. Particularly in the peripheral parts of the regions, it will be possible for the authorities to decide what they wish to do and to get on with it. But any changes which they wish to make—if they involve closure or change of use of a hospital—would still have to go through the formal consultation procedure. As my

hon. Friend knows, that may mean that the issue comes to Ministers for decision.
I turn briefly to the question of heart transplants. In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) on 13 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the Government's policy on heart transplants quite clear. Heart transplantation is now an established procedure in a number of centres abroad. Although the results of the latest programmes of heart transplants in this country are encouraging, we believe that the Government and the National Health Service should put only limited resources into heart transplant surgery until it can be shown that the results here compare with those being achieved abroad.
The transplant advisory panel has advised the Government that transplants should be carried out only as a planned programme of at least eight operations a year, in centres which conform to certain conditions and which can carry out the work without detriment to other established cardiac services. My right hon. Friend made it clear that the Government accepted the panel's advice, but with the proviso that any programme of transplants should not be to the detriment of non-cardiac as well as cardiac services in the area concerned.
The transplant advisory panel has accepted Papworth hospital, Cambridge, as suitable for a programme of transplants and, on the basis of undertakings from the local health authority that such a programme would not be to the detriment of other services, we have agreed to make a special contribution centrally to the capital costs of improvements that the authority needs to make to carry forward the programme.
The question of a future programme of transplant work at Harefield hospital must now be a matter for local decision in the light of my right hon. Friend's clear policy statement. As a key element in this local consideration, the North-West Thames regional health authority is asking a small panel of experts to consider the situation at Harefield. The panel is being called on to examine whether the facilities available at Harefield conform to the transplant advisory panel's criteria and how other services at Harefield are affected by a programme of transplant work. The


membership of this group has not yet been finalised, but I gather that it is to be chaired by Professor Goodwin of the Hammersmith hospital and that it will draw other members from outside London. I understand that the team at Hare-field hospital has been informed of this and that the region hopes that the panel will be able to report by the middle of July.
I end by joining my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the skill and dedication of all the staff at Harefield hospital, in particular the small team engaged in heart transplant work. In a thriving Health Service there has to be a place for

local initiative in pushing forward pioneering work of this sort and, in this connection, I was particularly heartened to hear about the donation of £300,000 made by Mr. John James to support cardiac transplant work at Harefield. This should go a long way towards easing the financial burden that this type of surgery inevitably imposes on a health authority, and I welcome it as a splendid example of how private money can act as a positive supplement to public funds in the National Health Service.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.